I found James Rhem's examination of Rosenthal's research concerning the "Pygmalion phenomenon" (The National Teaching and Learning Forum, Vol. 8, No. 2 1999) both exciting and disturbing. Exciting, because in my more than 20 years of teaching I have found it to be true; disturbing, because of two thoughts that run through the article. First, that by having high expectations for students a self-fulfilling prophecy is created. And second, that "Superb teachers can teach the "unteachable"." Both conclusions, while to some degree are true, fail to identify what I think is the real power of expecting students to be successful.

I am not familiar with Rosenthal's research and the following research may be part of his work, but it exemplifies why I find these two conclusions incomplete. At the beginning of the school year a Superintendent called in ten teachers. He told them that they had been selected as ten of the best teachers in the district and as a reward he had put together ten classes made up of some of the best students at each grade level. He told them to go have fun but do not tell anyone what he had done for them. At the end of the year each class--without exception--had the best performance on the standardized tests. When the Superintendent met with the teachers to congratulate them on their success they responded, "It was easy. These were the best and easiest students to teach that they ever had." The Superintendent replied that was interesting to hear since he had to confess that these ten classes had not been made up of the brightest student but were really only made up of a random sample from each grade. The teachers were amazed. "How could this be? It must be because we are the best teachers." The Superintendent responded that perhaps there were other reasons because they were not the best teachers in the school district, but, like the students, was only a random sample of all the teachers.

This double blind experiment demonstrates the power of having a belief that students will be successful. It also represents several of the quality principles. First there is a difference between believing that all students can exceed their potential and expecting that only a few will be very successful. As demonstrated by the above research study, more often than not students will have high performance if allowed to. Having high expectations gives a student permission to be exceptional. Expecting the bell curve to be the model of performance gives only a very few students permission to excel. It is my experience that grading on the curve is an acknowledgment that a teacher does not know how to assess students' knowledge in a course, so uses the curve to minimize the chance of grading error by controlling for too many high and low grades. Another result of grading on the curve is that those who use this method tend not to have clearly identified what a student should be learning and what knowledge represents an "A" level of proficiency. And most important, making this clear to their students. Finally the tragedy of grading on the curve is that it eliminates the responsibility of being a teacher that judges his or her successes by how many of their students are successful. It is a possibility that a teacher who gives all their students an "A" is not guilty of grade inflation but is an outstanding teacher because all their students have achieved an "A" competency. Grading therefore needs to rethought and designed to maintain standards while at the same time promoting high expectations for all students.

A clear example of the Pygmalion phenomenon that demonstrates a system of quality is found in the play Stand and Deliver (Menendez and Musca, Dramatic Pub., 1997), the true story of Jaime Escalante. Escalante was a calculus teacher at James A. Garfield High School in Los Angeles who produced more students who passed the SAT Advanced Calculus Test than all but three other schools in the country. What made this notable is that the students in this school were primarily Hispanic and were expected to fail. Escalante believed that these students could succeed. The quality system he followed went like this: 1) Have a vision that the students should succeed. 2) Transfer this vision to the students so they begin to believe in themselves. 3) Set definable, measurable, and time bound goals. In this case it was pasting the Advanced Calculus SAT Exam in May. 4) Give the students the knowledge and skill to achieve their goal. 5) Stand out of their way as they rush to be successful.

My conclusion is that the Pygmalion phenomenon is real, but it is not self-fulfilling nor does its negative potential require exceptional teachers to be overcome. What it does require is an acceptance of a higher level of professional responsibility in being a teacher. It takes a new measurement of professional success based on the success of the students. The Pygmalion phenomenon works when a teacher believes that all students can be successful; gets the students to believe in themselves; takes the "gottcha" out of grading by makes the standards of the class clear; provides the students with as much teaching help as necessary until they have the knowledge and skills; and is prepared to recognize the success of each student with the appropriate grade, regardless of how many "A"s are awarded. My recommendation is that every higher education institution should have a "Doctor Henry Higgins Award."

--Jonathan D. Fife, former director ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education