E-mail
PrintI’m a nerd: I admit it. I love grammar puns. I relish solving algebraic equations, and I will swoon for any man who uses Latinate phrases. I’m such in nerd, in fact, that I attended multiple nerd camps during my youth to cultivate my nerdiness outside of the classroom. One of those camps was the Missouri Scholars Academy, a state-funded program that the Missouri House has just recommended be cut from next year’s budget.
Love my time there, though I did, I must say — to what I’m sure will be the outrage of my fellow nerds — that the House is absolutely right: If funds are truly limited, that particular nerd camp should not get government dollars.
- Katy Steinmetz
I’m not saying the academy isn’t great fun or that it isn’t beneficial for the attendees. It is, but at heart, the “academy” is really just a summer camp that happens to take place on the MU campus, and there’s no reason the state should pay for nerds to frolic when other, less nerdy Missourian kids have to shell out for their summer fun.
The state-funding proponents, largely program alumni, make a series of arguments to the contrary. They speak about how noble and necessary the academy is to the future of America. KBIA/91.3 FM featured some such defenders in their “Exam” education program last week. Below I present some of their arguments and my humble (but empirical) rebuttals.
Sophism No. 1: The program molds talented young people into leaders of tomorrow, leaders capable of tackling the world’s toughest problems.
The program consists of a three-week “academic program” where campers choose a “major” and a “minor” to study. However, this “study” is only done for 23 hours out of the week, and the subjects don’t necessarily strain the brain. I, for example, majored in “Humor,” which meant that I spent my days making sad attempts at improvised comedy and watching clips from Adam Sandler-esque films.
Outside of those 23 hours, campers have weeks filled with fun activities and field trips, making the bulk of the program just like (that’s right) your run-of-the-mill summer camp. My fond memories of those times include going to Ellis Library (to dance to Nelly songs on its steps) and making my way through a mud obstacle course.
The ad absurdum version of this argument, that if kids don’t experience these three weeks of camp, then they won’t become leaders, is silly enough. But I hardly left the Missouri Scholars Academy more mentally equipped to cure cancer than when I arrived, unless it turns out that laughter really is the best medicine after all.
Sophism #2: This is a case of giving gifted children their due because their potential is so often neglected in public school classrooms.
The above rebuttal also applies to this argument. The academy is not a means of evening out the attention that gifted students get relative to other students. I agree that the neglect of smart kids, in classrooms where teachers are busy not leaving other children behind, is a problem, but sending them to summer camp in compensation is not a responsible solution, especially because only 330 kids from the whole state are invited to attend.
Sophism #3: If the state spends money on these young people, those students will choose to go to college in Missouri, therefore making state-funding of the academy a good investment.
This is the equivalent of bribing athletes to attend schools. Even if some children would, is funding this dicey effort a better investment than funding educational programs where the desired return is simply that children learn something at the time?
Sophism #4: This is the only place in the world where really smart kids can fit in.
The academy certainly did provide tear-inspiring social acceptance when I was there, but it is not the state’s responsibility to pay for creating that environment. Nerdy outcasts should by all means huddle together and support one another in the summer months, but they should pay for that privilege – just as young Christians and overweight children and aspiring astronauts do at their respective camps.
Another point many seem to be glossing over is that the academy does not have to perish simply because it does not have space devoted to it in the Missouri budget. The camp is also funded by the Gifted Association of Missouri, the Missouri Scholars Academy Alumni Association and tax-deductible contributions from the public. This is to say, there are subsidies left, and if there are smart children out there whose families can’t afford to foot the rest of the bill, those outspoken proponents of the program should take it upon themselves to get grants and develop scholarships for that purpose.
The Missouri Scholars Academy is a wonderful place, but it’s not the Sorbonne. If the state doesn’t have funds to subsidize it, we must accept that and start looking for other ways to fund the program rather than hassling the legislature.
Katy Steinmetz is a columnist and reporter for the Missourian. She moved to Columbia after spending two years teaching in Winchester, England, and one year in Edinburgh, Scotland. She has freelanced for a variety of publications, including 417 Magazine in Springfield, Mo., and the Guardian in London. Katy plans to complete her MU master's degree in 2010.
Comments
MSA may not be the best way to reach gifted kids in daily classrooms, but it is one of the only ways Missouri is currently trying. Before we cut this program, I would suggest looking at what else we /will/ be doing in its place--and, right now, that answer will be nothing. Funding existing programs is difficult in the current legislative environment; creating new ones will be impossible.
What matters here is whose responsibility it is to provide a free, appropriate public education to Missouri students. It does not belong in the hands of a few taxpayers or private donors; that lies squarely in the hands of lawmakers. It is public education's responsibility to do this for every student: disadvantaged, average, or gifted. (For the first and second categories, FAPE is required by different legislations--IDEA and NCLB, respectively. Nothing is legally required for gifted students, and largely little is done.)
As for a counter to a negative MSA story: I attended. That attendance brought me to the University of Missouri, majoring in education & English, and planning to teach in the public school system which supported me (where I already volunteer). MSA is the reason for this, and did make me realize what I could give back to my community. All 330 scholars from one year embarked upon a mission to spread "Random Acts of Kindness" to their home towns. A student from last year's Academy raised several thousand dollars for the March of Dimes. What the Academy does for scholars--and what those scholars go on and do for their communities--matters, and deserves saving.
Interesting column Katy.
To Christina - Sorry for the belated reply. (I only just saw this.) I think we're in agreement about smart kids not getting enough attention and the need to address that, but just because the academy pays three weeks of attention summer-camp style to a tiny sliver of such Missourian kids, that doesn't mean it's a good use of funds.
Funding private tutoring, buying advanced textbooks, or forming gifted programs to be run during normal school hours (so more than 330 of those gifted kids don't spend their days bored out of their nerdy little minds) would all be more practical and fair uses of any funds. Presenting the academy as an answer to this problem is an insult to the needs behind that problem. And as a general rule, the funding of grossly insufficient programs is not justified by the lack of more appropriate ones.
Also, my MSA experience was by no means a negative one; it simply wasn't a particularly scholarly one. There are nebulous references to "character-building" and "leadership" that get thrown around a lot in reference to the academy, and it's hard to say the place doesn't provide such vague change, but, in my experience, there was an absence of concrete, academic curriculum to substantiate the program's title and supposed function. All that, however, doesn't mean I didn't have a great time; I think any kid who has the opportunity to go should go but that they could be expected to pay for that privilege because MSA is more a camp than an academy.
It's great that you and others you know were affected positively by the program, but doing "Random Acts of Kindness" is simply not an academic endeavor, however beneficial it might be, and my point is that such activities should not be funded by the government under that pretense.
Katy
I'm a sophomore in high school, and I just received my letter in the mail Friday saying that i was accepted into MSA. I am really excited about going, and have been wanting to go for years now. I think MSA needs to stay. At all the other summer camps I've been to, I've made really good friends, but they are from all over the country, so I never get to see them. A state organized camp is great, because you'll get to see all of your friends again, through school activities, sports, etc. I just hope that gifted students in the future also have the same opportunity. There's always summer college programs for students my age, but they are really expensive, and you might have to fly or drive half-way across the country to attend.
The most extensive summer camp system operated in Missouri by a university campus is the long-running one at Missouri University of Science & Technology. Their camp system is known nationally, attracts students from both Missouri and numerous other locations, and has even been written about in the New York Times.
Programs are aimed at students from middle school through senior in high school; some programs are specifically for girls while the rest are coed. My granddaughters have attended and enjoyed the programs.
The camps are a non-profit operation, but there are fees for all camps. Most students, actually their parents, are expected to pay full fee; however, financial hardship cases are excepted, based on proof of hardship and recommendation by the camper's teachers and principal. In those cases the fees are paid privately, and there is now even an endowment strictly for that purpose! The intent is not to make money on the camps, but the camps must not be paid for by Missouri taxpayers.
As many as 40% of former campers eventually enroll at MS&T. We consider that a very good "return on investment." How many advertising or publicity campaigns get 40% positive responses?
That sounds like a great financial system and one that might be a good model for other, similarly admirable but struggling camps to look at.
It is a great system - period - not just financially. It has been studied by institutions of higher learning outside Missouri. We give information to all who ask for it.
It has fascinated some of us that for years the four campuses of this supposed "university system" have each operated as if the other three campuses do not exist. Every "wheel" must then be painfully re-invented at each campus. How can that attitude be justified, especially in these economic times?
This is something we'd like to see our alumnus, Gary Forsee, and the Curators correct.
I have also been accepted to MSA for this year and I am extremely vexed at the thought that our state should neglect the advance of education for gifted students in favor of social prgrgams or other nonsensical expendatures.
"I have also been accepted to MSA for this year and I am extremely vexed at the thought that our state should neglect the advance of education for gifted students in favor of social prgrgams or other nonsensical expendatures."
I wouldn't be against better spelling programs, though!
"MSA is not a summer camp." Okay, explain to me what's wrong with the long-running and very successful summer camps sponsored by another University of Missouri System campus?
Yes, they ARE different: Missouri taxpayers aren't being obliged to pay for them, nor are they being asked to do so. Nor WILL they be asked to do so. They are financed by campers and their families paying a reasonable tuition, by faculty members donating their time, and by an endowment which funds tuition for a number of campers each summer whose families cannot afford the tuition. No grand claims are made for the camps. They are first and foremost a recruiting tool, but they also provide campers with an interesting and stimulating experience.
If MSA is worthwhile, why not charge tuition and also pass the hat for private funding?