Finding a Mentor
I just returned from Washington, D.C., where I attended the annual Davidson Fellows award ceremony at the Library of Congress. This year's award winners are fascinating, and I strongly recommend reading their biographies here.
All the recipients spoke briefly, and thanked the grown-ups who had helped them develop their projects. I was struck by the number of non-parent mentors each had found along the way. According to the program, astrophysics whiz Adam Solomon "knocked on doors at Columbia University until he met his current mentor" who led him to study brown dwarfs. Anarghya Vardhana, a mathematician, stayed after school with a math teacher who had a PhD in number theory learning how to move from solving problems in text books to dreaming up new problems (a key shift in breaking new ground in any research-based field). Mentors can help you learn what topics are ripe for investigation. They can give you access to equipment (key for science research). They can help you hone your creativity in humanities fields from something you dream up to something the world will want to consume. Indeed, having mentors is often the difference between kids who show promise in a subject and kids who truly nurture their talents in these fields.
They're also not always easy to find. Some high-achieving kids are blessed to have teachers or parents who are well-connected with local universities, professional artists or other such folk and are able or willing to use these connections. Some, like Solomon, go knock on doors until they find these people. I'm curious how other people reading this blog have found mentors. Alas, they do not all appear like Athena, disguised, who was the original Mentor comforting lonely Telemachus. How do you find a mentor in the non-mythical world?
Thursday, September 28, 2006
Monday, September 25, 2006
Nurturing Talent
The Vancouver Sun tackles the tricky issue of nurturing gifted kids' talents in an article called Nourishing the Super Kid. While the Superman art is a bit much, the article is actually pretty good, and worth a read.
The lead anecdote is about a mom whose kid was really into marine biology. She and her husband, to put it mildly, were not. But they were not intimidated by that fact. "It didn't matter that neither of them knew the difference between a sea slug and a salamander," the article states. "What mattered, Ansell-Shepherd says, is that they knew how to introduce their son to people who did."
So they took him to the museum. They took him to the library and let him load up on books. They took him to meetings of the local natural history society -- a move that's going above the call of duty, but hey. Quite simply, the kid's school was never going to teach marine biology. He loved the subject. So if he was going to learn it, he'd have to learn it outside of school. So he did.
The article goes on to give other good advice. Even in small towns where amenities are comparatively limited, it's often possible to find unexpected ways to feed a gift, one of the interviewed experts says. "It's about being resourceful. There are people in every community who can nurture passions. There's an assumption that every good coach was a gifted athlete. That's not true. I know many coaches who can't even participate in the sports they coach. You don't have to be a participant yourself to be a great mentor."
Nurturing gifts is tough. But I liked the approach of this piece. It's doable, no matter where you are.
The Vancouver Sun tackles the tricky issue of nurturing gifted kids' talents in an article called Nourishing the Super Kid. While the Superman art is a bit much, the article is actually pretty good, and worth a read.
The lead anecdote is about a mom whose kid was really into marine biology. She and her husband, to put it mildly, were not. But they were not intimidated by that fact. "It didn't matter that neither of them knew the difference between a sea slug and a salamander," the article states. "What mattered, Ansell-Shepherd says, is that they knew how to introduce their son to people who did."
So they took him to the museum. They took him to the library and let him load up on books. They took him to meetings of the local natural history society -- a move that's going above the call of duty, but hey. Quite simply, the kid's school was never going to teach marine biology. He loved the subject. So if he was going to learn it, he'd have to learn it outside of school. So he did.
The article goes on to give other good advice. Even in small towns where amenities are comparatively limited, it's often possible to find unexpected ways to feed a gift, one of the interviewed experts says. "It's about being resourceful. There are people in every community who can nurture passions. There's an assumption that every good coach was a gifted athlete. That's not true. I know many coaches who can't even participate in the sports they coach. You don't have to be a participant yourself to be a great mentor."
Nurturing gifts is tough. But I liked the approach of this piece. It's doable, no matter where you are.
Thursday, September 21, 2006
The Neglected Middle?
USA Today ran a column from Patrick Welsh, a D.C.-area teacher earlier this week, called Students Aren't Interchangeable. A true statement, of course. He makes the perfectly reasonable point that average children need to be challenged and that the curriculum should fit the child, not the other way around. He also points out that many educators are more interested in social engineering than in challenging kids. But I found the column unfortunate as a whole. He wants to be contrarian, so he decides to characterize gifted kids and their parents as poorly as possible so the much-neglected middle seems more deserving by contrast.
He starts by referring to parents of gifted kids as "fanatical" -- and "usually white, in my experience -- who think their kids are geniuses, who must be protected from less talented kids and who are entitled to every advantage and resource the school system has to offer." There you go. If you speak up about your kid needing educational accommodations, not only are you pushy, you're "fanatical." And while we're at it, let's get some racial overtones in there, too. Why not? No wonder Nicholas Colangelo, professor of gifted education at the Belin-Blank Center of the University of Iowa, and an expert on acceleration, recently told me that many parents of gifted kids perceive that any such requests will be viewed negatively -- so they don't ask. They don't want to be seen as pushy. With teachers like Welsh roaming the halls, that's not an unrealistic fear.
Welsh then goes on to say he has "heard teachers in neighboring Fairfax County, VA, joke that every middle class white kid is labeled either gifted and talented or learning disabled. The LD label goes over with parents because it implies that the kid is brighter than his or her work shows."
This is complete hyperbole. Fairfax County, VA's own reports show that about 8% of 3rd through 8th grade kids participate in its gifted programs (see the report here (and let me know if the direct PDF link doesn't work. It's the Fairfax County Gifted and Talented Advisory Committee Report from 2004). This is a wealthy district -- more than 8% of the kids are middle-class and white. Furthermore, the district is home to Thomas Jefferson high school, a magnet high school for gifted kids that's ranked among the top in the country. If you do have a highly gifed kid, and live in the greater D.C. area, you're quite likely to move to Fairfax for precisely this reason. So it would stand to reason that Fairfax would have a high percentage of gifted kids, particularly among the high school set. But even so, it's not a de facto segregation system. TJ is nearly 40% minority (Asian children are the largest minority group; interestingly, Asian parents are somehow exempt from Welsh's fanatical label). I'm surprised USA Today let Welsh get away with this stereotyping statement with absolutely no evidence to back it up.
But we're in a mode these days where complaining about pushy parents is hip. Columns like this are the result.
USA Today ran a column from Patrick Welsh, a D.C.-area teacher earlier this week, called Students Aren't Interchangeable. A true statement, of course. He makes the perfectly reasonable point that average children need to be challenged and that the curriculum should fit the child, not the other way around. He also points out that many educators are more interested in social engineering than in challenging kids. But I found the column unfortunate as a whole. He wants to be contrarian, so he decides to characterize gifted kids and their parents as poorly as possible so the much-neglected middle seems more deserving by contrast.
He starts by referring to parents of gifted kids as "fanatical" -- and "usually white, in my experience -- who think their kids are geniuses, who must be protected from less talented kids and who are entitled to every advantage and resource the school system has to offer." There you go. If you speak up about your kid needing educational accommodations, not only are you pushy, you're "fanatical." And while we're at it, let's get some racial overtones in there, too. Why not? No wonder Nicholas Colangelo, professor of gifted education at the Belin-Blank Center of the University of Iowa, and an expert on acceleration, recently told me that many parents of gifted kids perceive that any such requests will be viewed negatively -- so they don't ask. They don't want to be seen as pushy. With teachers like Welsh roaming the halls, that's not an unrealistic fear.
Welsh then goes on to say he has "heard teachers in neighboring Fairfax County, VA, joke that every middle class white kid is labeled either gifted and talented or learning disabled. The LD label goes over with parents because it implies that the kid is brighter than his or her work shows."
This is complete hyperbole. Fairfax County, VA's own reports show that about 8% of 3rd through 8th grade kids participate in its gifted programs (see the report here (and let me know if the direct PDF link doesn't work. It's the Fairfax County Gifted and Talented Advisory Committee Report from 2004). This is a wealthy district -- more than 8% of the kids are middle-class and white. Furthermore, the district is home to Thomas Jefferson high school, a magnet high school for gifted kids that's ranked among the top in the country. If you do have a highly gifed kid, and live in the greater D.C. area, you're quite likely to move to Fairfax for precisely this reason. So it would stand to reason that Fairfax would have a high percentage of gifted kids, particularly among the high school set. But even so, it's not a de facto segregation system. TJ is nearly 40% minority (Asian children are the largest minority group; interestingly, Asian parents are somehow exempt from Welsh's fanatical label). I'm surprised USA Today let Welsh get away with this stereotyping statement with absolutely no evidence to back it up.
But we're in a mode these days where complaining about pushy parents is hip. Columns like this are the result.
Monday, September 18, 2006
Genius on CNN
I hope some of you were able to catch the Dr. Sanjay Gupta special on "Genius" on CNN last night (and my apologies for not promoting it on this blog before hand). The hour-long show covered quite a lot, dancing over everything from prodigious savants (I was especially fascinated by one young man who was able to recall any date's day of the week, weather, and what he did, after he got hit in the head with a baseball) to the Davidson Academy in Reno. It even featured a quick shot of the cover of Genius Denied.
My general take-away is that the brain is a strange organ that we're only beginning to understand. We have a very hard time separating out how much of intelligence is nature or nurture (as evidenced by the "Center for Germinal Choice" bit on the offspring of the Nobel Prize winners sperm bank). But regardless of what leads to genius, we should nurture it where we find it. Did anyone else see the show? I'd love to hear your opinions.
I hope some of you were able to catch the Dr. Sanjay Gupta special on "Genius" on CNN last night (and my apologies for not promoting it on this blog before hand). The hour-long show covered quite a lot, dancing over everything from prodigious savants (I was especially fascinated by one young man who was able to recall any date's day of the week, weather, and what he did, after he got hit in the head with a baseball) to the Davidson Academy in Reno. It even featured a quick shot of the cover of Genius Denied.
My general take-away is that the brain is a strange organ that we're only beginning to understand. We have a very hard time separating out how much of intelligence is nature or nurture (as evidenced by the "Center for Germinal Choice" bit on the offspring of the Nobel Prize winners sperm bank). But regardless of what leads to genius, we should nurture it where we find it. Did anyone else see the show? I'd love to hear your opinions.
Thursday, September 14, 2006
Homeschooling, with a Full-Time Job
Today's Wall Street Journal has a fascinating piece from Sue Shellenbarger on parents who homeschool their children while holding down full-time jobs. While homeschooling and gifted education aren't related per se, my experience is that a number of parents of highly gifted children wind up giving it a go at some point. Perhaps the child is asynchronous, so whole grade acceleration isn't a great option, or the school doesn't allow subject matter acceleration, or the high school is great but the middle school isn't, so the family tries homeschooling for two years....
One of the barriers to parents making such a decision is that it's usually perceived as difficult to homeschool a child and make a living at the same time. Homeschooling has religious roots, and many of the families who choose it for those reasons believe in having one parent at home. But those who choose it for secular reasons may not -- or they may not have the resources to live on one income -- or both parents may love their work. So what do you do?
According to Sue Shellenbarger, you make it work. An entire academic day can be compressed into 2-4 hours (given all the down time kids have in school). So parents stagger shifts -- one homeschools from 8am to noon, for instance, then reports to work while the kids stay with a sitter. The other parent gets home at 5 or 6 and finishes up the lessons. Or homeschooling can be done in the evening (there is the question of what to do with the kids during the day -- some families hire a sitter/nanny who drives the kids to college classes or supervises online learning). A number of people who work full-time work at home to make it work. Shellenbarger profiles a woman named Shari Smith, who works 60 hours per week as a moderator for the website iVillage.com. She homeschools her daughter as she works at home, putting young Rebekah on assignments, working for 30 minutes, checking in with Rebekah, going back to work, etc. (Rebekah notes that homeschooling "is pretty cool, because I can be in my pajamas at school.")
Online curricula make this all easier, as the parent doesn't have to be "on" quite as much while homeschooling. Shellenbarger even found one single mom, Amy Garber of Mechanicsville, VA, who makes it work. She goes to her employer's office in the morning while a sitter cares for her two kids. In the afternoon, she homeschools. After the kids go to bed, she works at her home office from 7:30pm until midnight.
Obviously, Garber's schedule doesn't leave her a lot of room for hobbies and such. It also requires an employer who's willing to commit to a flexible schedule as long as the work gets done. But her story shows that even being a single parent doesn't have to be a barrier, if the parent decides homeschooling is the best educational option.
Today's Wall Street Journal has a fascinating piece from Sue Shellenbarger on parents who homeschool their children while holding down full-time jobs. While homeschooling and gifted education aren't related per se, my experience is that a number of parents of highly gifted children wind up giving it a go at some point. Perhaps the child is asynchronous, so whole grade acceleration isn't a great option, or the school doesn't allow subject matter acceleration, or the high school is great but the middle school isn't, so the family tries homeschooling for two years....
One of the barriers to parents making such a decision is that it's usually perceived as difficult to homeschool a child and make a living at the same time. Homeschooling has religious roots, and many of the families who choose it for those reasons believe in having one parent at home. But those who choose it for secular reasons may not -- or they may not have the resources to live on one income -- or both parents may love their work. So what do you do?
According to Sue Shellenbarger, you make it work. An entire academic day can be compressed into 2-4 hours (given all the down time kids have in school). So parents stagger shifts -- one homeschools from 8am to noon, for instance, then reports to work while the kids stay with a sitter. The other parent gets home at 5 or 6 and finishes up the lessons. Or homeschooling can be done in the evening (there is the question of what to do with the kids during the day -- some families hire a sitter/nanny who drives the kids to college classes or supervises online learning). A number of people who work full-time work at home to make it work. Shellenbarger profiles a woman named Shari Smith, who works 60 hours per week as a moderator for the website iVillage.com. She homeschools her daughter as she works at home, putting young Rebekah on assignments, working for 30 minutes, checking in with Rebekah, going back to work, etc. (Rebekah notes that homeschooling "is pretty cool, because I can be in my pajamas at school.")
Online curricula make this all easier, as the parent doesn't have to be "on" quite as much while homeschooling. Shellenbarger even found one single mom, Amy Garber of Mechanicsville, VA, who makes it work. She goes to her employer's office in the morning while a sitter cares for her two kids. In the afternoon, she homeschools. After the kids go to bed, she works at her home office from 7:30pm until midnight.
Obviously, Garber's schedule doesn't leave her a lot of room for hobbies and such. It also requires an employer who's willing to commit to a flexible schedule as long as the work gets done. But her story shows that even being a single parent doesn't have to be a barrier, if the parent decides homeschooling is the best educational option.
Wednesday, September 13, 2006
Combining High School and College?
Many gifted high school kids already take some college classes as a way to accelerate their education (indeed, AP classes are supposed to be at the college level, and some 60% of high schools now offer them). Now a school district in California is proposing combining a high school with a junior college to allow kids to earn a high school diploma and a 2-year degree at the same time. While many gifted kids have their eyes on 4-year-degrees, I think this close relationship between a high school and a college would be a great model for other districts.
You can read about Chico, California's efforts here. You can also read some complaints about the project here.
This particular letter-writer doesn't like the idea because kids will be giving up "friends and school activities." But one of the big complaints about the last few years of high school for many bright kids is that they're a holding pattern. You're pretty much grown up, but not entirely, from a legal perspective. You're probably ready for college work, but that requires a real push from parents or the kid to make that happen (will you take a bus to a college? Walk? will the college say yes? who pays?) Combining a high school with a junior college not only allows bright kids to move ahead, it allows kids at the junior college to brush up on subjects they might be spotty on. It's an unfortunate truth that approximately 40% of community college students must enroll in some sort of remedial course. If such classes are already being offered at an attached high school, both the students and taxpayers could save some money.
Of course, many concepts sound better in theory than in practice, but I think this one's worth a try.
Many gifted high school kids already take some college classes as a way to accelerate their education (indeed, AP classes are supposed to be at the college level, and some 60% of high schools now offer them). Now a school district in California is proposing combining a high school with a junior college to allow kids to earn a high school diploma and a 2-year degree at the same time. While many gifted kids have their eyes on 4-year-degrees, I think this close relationship between a high school and a college would be a great model for other districts.
You can read about Chico, California's efforts here. You can also read some complaints about the project here.
This particular letter-writer doesn't like the idea because kids will be giving up "friends and school activities." But one of the big complaints about the last few years of high school for many bright kids is that they're a holding pattern. You're pretty much grown up, but not entirely, from a legal perspective. You're probably ready for college work, but that requires a real push from parents or the kid to make that happen (will you take a bus to a college? Walk? will the college say yes? who pays?) Combining a high school with a junior college not only allows bright kids to move ahead, it allows kids at the junior college to brush up on subjects they might be spotty on. It's an unfortunate truth that approximately 40% of community college students must enroll in some sort of remedial course. If such classes are already being offered at an attached high school, both the students and taxpayers could save some money.
Of course, many concepts sound better in theory than in practice, but I think this one's worth a try.
Monday, September 11, 2006
Is Kindergarten the New First Grade?
It is according to Newsweek, whose cover story last week made the oft-repeated point that kids are under too much pressure, too soon.
As I've pointed out before on this blog, I'm skeptical. Certainly, there are schools that make kids do too much pointless homework. And certainly some kids aren't ready for academic work at age five. But plenty are. They're jumping at the bit to start reading and doing fun things with numbers. That kindergarten is starting to nurture this curiosity -- rather than just involving nap and playground time -- is not a bad thing.
Indeed, I'm not sure about the point of kindergarten if it's not going to have an academic bent. In this day and age, most children have some experience dealing with other kids in social settings by age five -- through day care, private preschool, or public preschool programs like Head Start. Kids do arrive at kindergarten with a wide range of skills, which makes excellent teachers who can accommodate individual children's needs a necessity. But we shouldn't lament that now schools are saying it's OK -- and maybe even worth a little pushing -- for kids to start reading in kindergarten. If all grades were challenging kids more, we wouldn't have so many of the educational problems we do.
It is according to Newsweek, whose cover story last week made the oft-repeated point that kids are under too much pressure, too soon.
As I've pointed out before on this blog, I'm skeptical. Certainly, there are schools that make kids do too much pointless homework. And certainly some kids aren't ready for academic work at age five. But plenty are. They're jumping at the bit to start reading and doing fun things with numbers. That kindergarten is starting to nurture this curiosity -- rather than just involving nap and playground time -- is not a bad thing.
Indeed, I'm not sure about the point of kindergarten if it's not going to have an academic bent. In this day and age, most children have some experience dealing with other kids in social settings by age five -- through day care, private preschool, or public preschool programs like Head Start. Kids do arrive at kindergarten with a wide range of skills, which makes excellent teachers who can accommodate individual children's needs a necessity. But we shouldn't lament that now schools are saying it's OK -- and maybe even worth a little pushing -- for kids to start reading in kindergarten. If all grades were challenging kids more, we wouldn't have so many of the educational problems we do.
Thursday, September 07, 2006
Terence Tao and nurturing gifted kids
Someone had posted a question about Terence Tao, recent winner of the Fields medal in mathematics, on another thread. While the "early ripe, early rot" cliche gets bandied about a lot, Tao's story is more of the "early bud, early bloom" variety. A child math prodigy, he grew up into an adult math sensation.
Much has been written about his schooling. One example from Miraca Gross (like Tao, an Australian) can be found at GT-Cybersource here. I've been doing some research on this topic as I'm supposed to write a column for USA Today on prodigies (once they get done with the Sept. 11 commemoration pieces).
Basically, Grace and Billy Tao realized very early that they had an exceptional son (all their children are, really!) He taught himself his letters and numbers by watching Sesame Street at age 2. He was doing high school math by age 7, and amused himself by working problems and reading books in his spare time. Keeping him in grade level classes was a non-starter. So the Taos directed his schooling, at one point having him study math only at home, not at school, so he wouldn't learn to hate it by being unchallenged. He took various other classes out of sequence as well, at one point doing humanities classes with kids in Year 8 (as the Ozzies call it), geography with kids in years 10 and 11, physics with year 12, etc.
The Taos also gave him plenty of time to become absorbed in his favorite subject but, as his father, Dr. Billy Tao, said in an email to me, never "pushed." They wanted Terence to learn to think for himself. So rather than telling him what he was doing wrong when he got frustrated by a tough problem, they asked him questions that would help him think about the problem in a different way. This was slower in the short run (and frustrating to an impatient little boy!) but in the long run helped him gain a deeper understanding of problem solving. And, as Dr. Tao pointed out, eventually there would come a time when he and his wife couldn't help anyway. So it was good to have Terence learn self-reliance from the beginning.
The results show. Only mathematicians who make major contributions to the field win the Fields prize. Talent has to be nurtured. As M.A. (Ken) Clement wrote in a biographical article of Terence Tao in Educational Studies in Mathematics in 1984, "I had to admire the efforts which his parents, Billy and Grace, had made on his behalf, despite the danger that they would be labeled 'pushy' by persons who did not understand.... In a society where hostility towards parents who regard their children as sufficiently bright to warrant extra-special educational consideration is endemic, it is refreshing to discover parents as courageous and realistic as Grace and Billy Tao."
In other words, when it comes to highly gifted kids, what many people mistake for pushy parenting is, in fact, good parenting of pushy kids.
Someone had posted a question about Terence Tao, recent winner of the Fields medal in mathematics, on another thread. While the "early ripe, early rot" cliche gets bandied about a lot, Tao's story is more of the "early bud, early bloom" variety. A child math prodigy, he grew up into an adult math sensation.
Much has been written about his schooling. One example from Miraca Gross (like Tao, an Australian) can be found at GT-Cybersource here. I've been doing some research on this topic as I'm supposed to write a column for USA Today on prodigies (once they get done with the Sept. 11 commemoration pieces).
Basically, Grace and Billy Tao realized very early that they had an exceptional son (all their children are, really!) He taught himself his letters and numbers by watching Sesame Street at age 2. He was doing high school math by age 7, and amused himself by working problems and reading books in his spare time. Keeping him in grade level classes was a non-starter. So the Taos directed his schooling, at one point having him study math only at home, not at school, so he wouldn't learn to hate it by being unchallenged. He took various other classes out of sequence as well, at one point doing humanities classes with kids in Year 8 (as the Ozzies call it), geography with kids in years 10 and 11, physics with year 12, etc.
The Taos also gave him plenty of time to become absorbed in his favorite subject but, as his father, Dr. Billy Tao, said in an email to me, never "pushed." They wanted Terence to learn to think for himself. So rather than telling him what he was doing wrong when he got frustrated by a tough problem, they asked him questions that would help him think about the problem in a different way. This was slower in the short run (and frustrating to an impatient little boy!) but in the long run helped him gain a deeper understanding of problem solving. And, as Dr. Tao pointed out, eventually there would come a time when he and his wife couldn't help anyway. So it was good to have Terence learn self-reliance from the beginning.
The results show. Only mathematicians who make major contributions to the field win the Fields prize. Talent has to be nurtured. As M.A. (Ken) Clement wrote in a biographical article of Terence Tao in Educational Studies in Mathematics in 1984, "I had to admire the efforts which his parents, Billy and Grace, had made on his behalf, despite the danger that they would be labeled 'pushy' by persons who did not understand.... In a society where hostility towards parents who regard their children as sufficiently bright to warrant extra-special educational consideration is endemic, it is refreshing to discover parents as courageous and realistic as Grace and Billy Tao."
In other words, when it comes to highly gifted kids, what many people mistake for pushy parenting is, in fact, good parenting of pushy kids.
Tuesday, September 05, 2006
A Boot Camp for Budding Virtuosos
Business Week has an article in the Aug 21/28 "Competition" issue on the Meadowmount School of Music in Westport, NY. This summer camp creates some of the top string players in the world by putting young people through a rigorous course of practicing (at least 5 hours a day) and performing -- maybe. As the article points out, only the top 60 or so students are allowed to perform, though 220 attend. Everyone else pays their tuition and yet is never deemed worthy to give a concert.
In this way, the school is more or less following the real world of professional classical music. One study found that there are 6 qualified musicians for any open position today in classical music. The last time the National Symphony Orchestra in Washington had an opening for a violinist (in October 2004, Business Week says), more than 320 folks applied and 124 auditioned. I see this myself in the choral field. I'm the president of an organization called the Young New Yorkers' Chorus. We had dozens of people apply for the music director position this year -- and had to choose among people who were all qualified for the job. YNYC runs a "Competition for Young Composers" each year, and also sees how many young musicians are competing for the scarce commissioning dollars out there.
All the students at Meadowmount want National Symphony Orchestra type jobs, and indeed many of them do eventually land such positions. The Business Week article tries to make the point that succeeding in the musical world (and by extension, the business world -- this is Business Week) is almost entirely about how much you practice. Raw talent is not the issue. If you want to be better, do more.
That may be partly true. But music students with more innate talent, in my experience, tend to love their craft more. It is hard to practice 5, 6, 7 hours a day or more if you don't love something. Being naturally good at something and loving it tend to go hand in hand -- which leads to more hours spent practicing, and practicing better.
So unlike Business Week, I wouldn't say that success is 10% inspiration and 90% perspiration. I'd say it's more like 40-60.
But at 60%, the "perspiration" part is still the most major component. That's why in all fields, not just music, it's a crime to let gifted kids skate through without working hard. When a gifted kid is told to just wait for everyone to catch up in math class, she's denied the joy of learning to work hard, which makes her better at math, and more likely to succeed in the future.
Business Week has an article in the Aug 21/28 "Competition" issue on the Meadowmount School of Music in Westport, NY. This summer camp creates some of the top string players in the world by putting young people through a rigorous course of practicing (at least 5 hours a day) and performing -- maybe. As the article points out, only the top 60 or so students are allowed to perform, though 220 attend. Everyone else pays their tuition and yet is never deemed worthy to give a concert.
In this way, the school is more or less following the real world of professional classical music. One study found that there are 6 qualified musicians for any open position today in classical music. The last time the National Symphony Orchestra in Washington had an opening for a violinist (in October 2004, Business Week says), more than 320 folks applied and 124 auditioned. I see this myself in the choral field. I'm the president of an organization called the Young New Yorkers' Chorus. We had dozens of people apply for the music director position this year -- and had to choose among people who were all qualified for the job. YNYC runs a "Competition for Young Composers" each year, and also sees how many young musicians are competing for the scarce commissioning dollars out there.
All the students at Meadowmount want National Symphony Orchestra type jobs, and indeed many of them do eventually land such positions. The Business Week article tries to make the point that succeeding in the musical world (and by extension, the business world -- this is Business Week) is almost entirely about how much you practice. Raw talent is not the issue. If you want to be better, do more.
That may be partly true. But music students with more innate talent, in my experience, tend to love their craft more. It is hard to practice 5, 6, 7 hours a day or more if you don't love something. Being naturally good at something and loving it tend to go hand in hand -- which leads to more hours spent practicing, and practicing better.
So unlike Business Week, I wouldn't say that success is 10% inspiration and 90% perspiration. I'd say it's more like 40-60.
But at 60%, the "perspiration" part is still the most major component. That's why in all fields, not just music, it's a crime to let gifted kids skate through without working hard. When a gifted kid is told to just wait for everyone to catch up in math class, she's denied the joy of learning to work hard, which makes her better at math, and more likely to succeed in the future.
Monday, August 28, 2006
More Options for Gifted Kids
Somebody must be listening about the lack of schooling options for many gifted kids... Now Stanford University has announced that it will create a full-time online high school as an extension of its EPGY program. You can read about the article here, in the San Jose Mercury News.
Online high schools have gotten a bit of a bad rep in recent years, as a number have sprung up to cater to athletes who need certain grades to play in college. Having the Stanford brand name attached to one will certainly do a lot to make this variety of school seem more legitimate.
There will be some in-person interaction; Stanford recommends that students visit campus in summer to take their lab courses and meet with professors.
Online learning is certainly not for everyone. Kids need to be very motivated (it's easier to get away with zoning out than in a traditional classroom!). Some people find it easier to drop out of courses when they don't have a personal connection to the teacher or the other classmates. I've taken a few online writing classes, and inevitably we lose about half of the students by the end.
On the other hand, many parents of highly gifted kids wind up homeschooling at some point. These parents often complain about the lack of advanced curricula (or secular curricula in general) available for highly gifted homeschooled kids. For these families, Stanford's high school can't start soon enough.
Somebody must be listening about the lack of schooling options for many gifted kids... Now Stanford University has announced that it will create a full-time online high school as an extension of its EPGY program. You can read about the article here, in the San Jose Mercury News.
Online high schools have gotten a bit of a bad rep in recent years, as a number have sprung up to cater to athletes who need certain grades to play in college. Having the Stanford brand name attached to one will certainly do a lot to make this variety of school seem more legitimate.
There will be some in-person interaction; Stanford recommends that students visit campus in summer to take their lab courses and meet with professors.
Online learning is certainly not for everyone. Kids need to be very motivated (it's easier to get away with zoning out than in a traditional classroom!). Some people find it easier to drop out of courses when they don't have a personal connection to the teacher or the other classmates. I've taken a few online writing classes, and inevitably we lose about half of the students by the end.
On the other hand, many parents of highly gifted kids wind up homeschooling at some point. These parents often complain about the lack of advanced curricula (or secular curricula in general) available for highly gifted homeschooled kids. For these families, Stanford's high school can't start soon enough.
Thursday, August 24, 2006
Margaret Spellings on Gifted Education
On Tuesday, I attended the opening ceremonies for the Davidson Academy of Nevada. U.S. Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings was the keynote speaker, and there was some general audience trepidation that the speech might amount to a commercial for No Child Left Behind, which has been a mixed bag (probably good for raising the floor; not so good for raising the ceiling -- and in some cases squashing it).
The commercial did air; we got the spiel that big chunks of our schools' mediocrity could be laid at the feet of a lack of information. Now that we have information on test scores, things will improve. Perhaps -- transparent information is part of the equation. But real accountability, merit pay for teachers and principles, ability grouping and high expectations are also part of it. The Belleville, NJ school system I wrote about a few posts ago that is choosing to stunt the growth of its brightest students doesn't lack information. It just has a backwards philosophy.
But I digress. I'm happy to report that Spellings said many of the right things to an audience that was passionate about gifted education. Many of the Davidson Academy student speakers spoke about how bored they were in previous schools due to the lack of challenge. Spellings apologized on behalf of public educators everywhere. Then she said that NCLB was a start -- a minimum ("grade level learning is the minimum for success") -- and that we need to pay more attention to kids who are doing more than the minimum. Customization, she said, was the "next big revolution in education."
"Every student deserves individual attention," she said. "Education is not a one-size-fits-all enterprise."
She reported on traveling to India, and seeing a hunger for advanced learning that is often lacking in American schools. Indeed, she said that three out of four high school students say they are not challenged (a big admission from a woman who, officially, is somewhat responsible for all those schools' lack of challenge!) By denying children access to rigorous classes, she said, we deny their potential.
So we shall see. Politicians often say good things, so we shall see if President Bush's education agenda over the next two years actually does try to raise the ceiling in addition to the floor. I hope so. We need it. Does anyone have suggestions of what could be done on the federal level to make sure that not only are no children left behind, but that children are encouraged to surge ahead?
On Tuesday, I attended the opening ceremonies for the Davidson Academy of Nevada. U.S. Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings was the keynote speaker, and there was some general audience trepidation that the speech might amount to a commercial for No Child Left Behind, which has been a mixed bag (probably good for raising the floor; not so good for raising the ceiling -- and in some cases squashing it).
The commercial did air; we got the spiel that big chunks of our schools' mediocrity could be laid at the feet of a lack of information. Now that we have information on test scores, things will improve. Perhaps -- transparent information is part of the equation. But real accountability, merit pay for teachers and principles, ability grouping and high expectations are also part of it. The Belleville, NJ school system I wrote about a few posts ago that is choosing to stunt the growth of its brightest students doesn't lack information. It just has a backwards philosophy.
But I digress. I'm happy to report that Spellings said many of the right things to an audience that was passionate about gifted education. Many of the Davidson Academy student speakers spoke about how bored they were in previous schools due to the lack of challenge. Spellings apologized on behalf of public educators everywhere. Then she said that NCLB was a start -- a minimum ("grade level learning is the minimum for success") -- and that we need to pay more attention to kids who are doing more than the minimum. Customization, she said, was the "next big revolution in education."
"Every student deserves individual attention," she said. "Education is not a one-size-fits-all enterprise."
She reported on traveling to India, and seeing a hunger for advanced learning that is often lacking in American schools. Indeed, she said that three out of four high school students say they are not challenged (a big admission from a woman who, officially, is somewhat responsible for all those schools' lack of challenge!) By denying children access to rigorous classes, she said, we deny their potential.
So we shall see. Politicians often say good things, so we shall see if President Bush's education agenda over the next two years actually does try to raise the ceiling in addition to the floor. I hope so. We need it. Does anyone have suggestions of what could be done on the federal level to make sure that not only are no children left behind, but that children are encouraged to surge ahead?
Monday, August 21, 2006
Live from the Davidson Academy
For those wondering why I haven't been posting... I took a vacation out west doing some hiking, camping, and wedding attending. Now I'm back on line. Yesterday, I drove across Nevada from Salt Lake City. I landed in Reno, where I'm now blogging live from the Davidson Academy, the nation's first public school for profoundly gifted students.
The kids and parents all showed up this afternoon for a ribbon cutting ceremony (quick, given the 95 degree heat!) Tomorrow we'll be hearing from Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings and other VIPs.
The school will be starting next week with just shy of 40 students from around the country. Any Nevada resident student who qualifies can attend free of charge -- and several of the families of these profoundly gifted kids became Nevada residents to attend.
School hasn't started yet, so it's hard to render a verdict, but I can say this. You rarely see kids so excited about school. I spoke with a young lady in the parking lot who told me "I can't wait for school to start!" This is a sentiment you rarely hear cross the lips of very gifted kids in regular schools. So I'm thrilled for them. The higher-levels literature teacher reports that the curriculum will be quite connected -- kids may read Darwin's Origin of Species as they're studying evolution in science. I'm typing at a computer that's perched next to a stack of math textbooks of various levels, all thrown together so kids can work through them without the artificial structure of grades dictating what they're ready to know. And people who've spent a lot of time around gifted kids can appreciate this last observation: Some "misbehavior" (noisiness during the Davidsons' board meeting from a few kids who were still here) involved what appeared to be a very raucous and advanced game of Scrabble.
You've got to love it.
For those wondering why I haven't been posting... I took a vacation out west doing some hiking, camping, and wedding attending. Now I'm back on line. Yesterday, I drove across Nevada from Salt Lake City. I landed in Reno, where I'm now blogging live from the Davidson Academy, the nation's first public school for profoundly gifted students.
The kids and parents all showed up this afternoon for a ribbon cutting ceremony (quick, given the 95 degree heat!) Tomorrow we'll be hearing from Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings and other VIPs.
The school will be starting next week with just shy of 40 students from around the country. Any Nevada resident student who qualifies can attend free of charge -- and several of the families of these profoundly gifted kids became Nevada residents to attend.
School hasn't started yet, so it's hard to render a verdict, but I can say this. You rarely see kids so excited about school. I spoke with a young lady in the parking lot who told me "I can't wait for school to start!" This is a sentiment you rarely hear cross the lips of very gifted kids in regular schools. So I'm thrilled for them. The higher-levels literature teacher reports that the curriculum will be quite connected -- kids may read Darwin's Origin of Species as they're studying evolution in science. I'm typing at a computer that's perched next to a stack of math textbooks of various levels, all thrown together so kids can work through them without the artificial structure of grades dictating what they're ready to know. And people who've spent a lot of time around gifted kids can appreciate this last observation: Some "misbehavior" (noisiness during the Davidsons' board meeting from a few kids who were still here) involved what appeared to be a very raucous and advanced game of Scrabble.
You've got to love it.
Thursday, August 10, 2006
Belleville, NJ to Gifted Fourth-Graders: Drop Dead
This seems to be becoming an all-New Jersey blog, but the threats to gifted education in that state mirror the larger challenges the gifted education community in this country faces.
Starting this school year, Belleville, NJ, will no longer send its academically advanced 4th graders to a separate, ability-grouped school for math, science and other academic courses. You can read the news in this article, called Changes Approved for Program in the Belleville Post.
Now, these students will remain in their home schools, and two teachers with expertise in gifted education will circulate around the schools to provide instruction in larger, more heterogeneous classes. Why? The first explanation, offered by Belleville Superintendent of Schools Edward Kliszus, is that this way, twice as many kids can be identified as gifted.
But then we learn this was more of a philosophical decision, rather than a sudden discovery that twice as many kids in Belleville were gifted as was previously thought. Board President Arlene Schor noted that “You have students identified as falling into Gifted and Talented who are all sent to one school... They don’t interact with other kids. They don’t take gym or art. We just felt that it was almost a form of segregation with the academically talented.” Since special education kids are being mainstreamed in Belleville, the board believes that gifted kids should be, too.
The article notes that "Schor said the AT [academically talented] program looks great on paper, with a number of the AT minority going on to four-year colleges, but added the desire is to have the majority of Belleville’s students succeed, not just a small percentage. 'That’s where we’re coming from,' she said. The new program will celebrate and enhance diversity among the student population and not the principle of isolation."
“It can’t be done if they’re self-contained,” said Kliszus.
And, of course, what article on the destruction of a gifted program would be complete without a quote on how mainstreaming gifted kids will benefit everyone else? In regular, heterogeneous classes, says board trustee John McManus, "They can act as leaders and help to bring the other students up.”
For now, fifth and sixth graders will continue to go to the self-contained program, but with explanations like these, how long does anyone think that will last?
It's not that these people don't get it. They get it. They just don't care. They do not believe gifted kids deserve to have their needs met. They believe gifted kids should suffer in regular classes that are taught to the median, and by their suffering, become "leaders" for everyone else. And yes, these people run the schools. And we, as a country, become stuck with the consequences of genius denied.
This seems to be becoming an all-New Jersey blog, but the threats to gifted education in that state mirror the larger challenges the gifted education community in this country faces.
Starting this school year, Belleville, NJ, will no longer send its academically advanced 4th graders to a separate, ability-grouped school for math, science and other academic courses. You can read the news in this article, called Changes Approved for Program in the Belleville Post.
Now, these students will remain in their home schools, and two teachers with expertise in gifted education will circulate around the schools to provide instruction in larger, more heterogeneous classes. Why? The first explanation, offered by Belleville Superintendent of Schools Edward Kliszus, is that this way, twice as many kids can be identified as gifted.
But then we learn this was more of a philosophical decision, rather than a sudden discovery that twice as many kids in Belleville were gifted as was previously thought. Board President Arlene Schor noted that “You have students identified as falling into Gifted and Talented who are all sent to one school... They don’t interact with other kids. They don’t take gym or art. We just felt that it was almost a form of segregation with the academically talented.” Since special education kids are being mainstreamed in Belleville, the board believes that gifted kids should be, too.
The article notes that "Schor said the AT [academically talented] program looks great on paper, with a number of the AT minority going on to four-year colleges, but added the desire is to have the majority of Belleville’s students succeed, not just a small percentage. 'That’s where we’re coming from,' she said. The new program will celebrate and enhance diversity among the student population and not the principle of isolation."
“It can’t be done if they’re self-contained,” said Kliszus.
And, of course, what article on the destruction of a gifted program would be complete without a quote on how mainstreaming gifted kids will benefit everyone else? In regular, heterogeneous classes, says board trustee John McManus, "They can act as leaders and help to bring the other students up.”
For now, fifth and sixth graders will continue to go to the self-contained program, but with explanations like these, how long does anyone think that will last?
It's not that these people don't get it. They get it. They just don't care. They do not believe gifted kids deserve to have their needs met. They believe gifted kids should suffer in regular classes that are taught to the median, and by their suffering, become "leaders" for everyone else. And yes, these people run the schools. And we, as a country, become stuck with the consequences of genius denied.
Tuesday, August 08, 2006
NJ Governor's School Update
In previous posts, we've discussed how New Jersey cut funding for its annual summer Governor's School programs this year. Thanks to fundraising efforts by former NJ first lady Ruthi Byrne and others, the programs ran as planned.
Well, almost as planned. I didn't know whether to laugh or cry reading this article in the Daily Record, called "Despite Mishaps, Governor's School Proves Memorable for 100 Teens."
This particular Governor's school program highlighted in the article focused on international studies. Students took classes and participated in activites at Ramapo College in Mahweh, NJ. Because of the funding problems, the program was pared down from past years. Instead of visiting Quebec to study our nearest foreign culture, for instance, students were supposed to go to Washington, D.C. Due to a lack of funds, that trip got canceled too.
Then the fun really began. First, a 15-hour blackout meant students couldn't sleep in their 8-story dorm (it was deemed a fire hazard). They were allowed back in for a few minutes at 2am the night of the blackout to get their things, and then were scattered to the few available spots on campus.
Then, two-and-a-half weeks into the four week program, came the death blow: One of the campers was diagnosed with whooping cough. You're supposed to be vaccinated against this as a baby, but judging by the recent measles outbreak among kids in Indiana who weren't immunized, that's never a given anymore. Whooping cough is quite contagious, so the Bergen County health department forced the Governor's School program to evacuate the dorms. Parents had to come pick up their students by midnight.
Of course, if any of the Governor's School students do wind up working in international affairs in, say, refugee camps, they'll wind up dealing with a lack of electricity and contagious diseases quite frequently. In that sense, this program may have inadvertantly prepared them for the job...
But anyway, what struck me about reading this article is how much the kids loved being with other bright kids like them, despite the chaos. They talked about how close they became with each other, how much they loved learning. Despite the black outs, disease outbreaks and shortened programs, the kids were so grateful for the experience.
It's a shame that for most gifted kids, summer programs like Governor's school are the only opportunity to experience that joy. If NJ truly wants to help its gifted kids, it will establish Governor's school type programs that last for the whole school year (of course, they might want to check people's immunization records a bit more closely before they do).
In previous posts, we've discussed how New Jersey cut funding for its annual summer Governor's School programs this year. Thanks to fundraising efforts by former NJ first lady Ruthi Byrne and others, the programs ran as planned.
Well, almost as planned. I didn't know whether to laugh or cry reading this article in the Daily Record, called "Despite Mishaps, Governor's School Proves Memorable for 100 Teens."
This particular Governor's school program highlighted in the article focused on international studies. Students took classes and participated in activites at Ramapo College in Mahweh, NJ. Because of the funding problems, the program was pared down from past years. Instead of visiting Quebec to study our nearest foreign culture, for instance, students were supposed to go to Washington, D.C. Due to a lack of funds, that trip got canceled too.
Then the fun really began. First, a 15-hour blackout meant students couldn't sleep in their 8-story dorm (it was deemed a fire hazard). They were allowed back in for a few minutes at 2am the night of the blackout to get their things, and then were scattered to the few available spots on campus.
Then, two-and-a-half weeks into the four week program, came the death blow: One of the campers was diagnosed with whooping cough. You're supposed to be vaccinated against this as a baby, but judging by the recent measles outbreak among kids in Indiana who weren't immunized, that's never a given anymore. Whooping cough is quite contagious, so the Bergen County health department forced the Governor's School program to evacuate the dorms. Parents had to come pick up their students by midnight.
Of course, if any of the Governor's School students do wind up working in international affairs in, say, refugee camps, they'll wind up dealing with a lack of electricity and contagious diseases quite frequently. In that sense, this program may have inadvertantly prepared them for the job...
But anyway, what struck me about reading this article is how much the kids loved being with other bright kids like them, despite the chaos. They talked about how close they became with each other, how much they loved learning. Despite the black outs, disease outbreaks and shortened programs, the kids were so grateful for the experience.
It's a shame that for most gifted kids, summer programs like Governor's school are the only opportunity to experience that joy. If NJ truly wants to help its gifted kids, it will establish Governor's school type programs that last for the whole school year (of course, they might want to check people's immunization records a bit more closely before they do).
Friday, August 04, 2006
The High Achieving (Homeschooled) Child
The Davidson Institute for Talent Development just released the names of its 2006 Davidson Fellows. They're a fascinating group of individuals, and you can read about them here.
I hope to profile a few more of them in the upcoming weeks, but one thing stood out for me immediately. Two of the three top winners (the Davidson Fellows Laureates) were homeschooled. For Heather Engebretson of Tuscaloosa, Alabama, homeschooling was a way to devote more time to studying her vocal technique. For Michael Viscardi of San Diego, California, homeschooling didnt necessarily mean "home" all the time -- being free of a normal school schedule gave him time to take all the college math classes he wanted.
I've been working on a piece on prodigies for USA Today that will point out that kids who are very gifted in one area are happiest when they get to spend a lot of time working in that area, playing in that area, immersing themselves in it. (if anyone has recommendations on prodigy "experts" -- people who've studied it, or studies, I'd welcome them!) While homeschooling is not for everyone, it certainly does cut down on the wasted time factor. Only a small percentage of school time is spent on actual instruction. If you compress, or "telescope" these broader lessons into a morning, that leaves the afternoon free to study math or sing. The results certainly show with these two scholarship winners.
The Davidson Institute for Talent Development just released the names of its 2006 Davidson Fellows. They're a fascinating group of individuals, and you can read about them here.
I hope to profile a few more of them in the upcoming weeks, but one thing stood out for me immediately. Two of the three top winners (the Davidson Fellows Laureates) were homeschooled. For Heather Engebretson of Tuscaloosa, Alabama, homeschooling was a way to devote more time to studying her vocal technique. For Michael Viscardi of San Diego, California, homeschooling didnt necessarily mean "home" all the time -- being free of a normal school schedule gave him time to take all the college math classes he wanted.
I've been working on a piece on prodigies for USA Today that will point out that kids who are very gifted in one area are happiest when they get to spend a lot of time working in that area, playing in that area, immersing themselves in it. (if anyone has recommendations on prodigy "experts" -- people who've studied it, or studies, I'd welcome them!) While homeschooling is not for everyone, it certainly does cut down on the wasted time factor. Only a small percentage of school time is spent on actual instruction. If you compress, or "telescope" these broader lessons into a morning, that leaves the afternoon free to study math or sing. The results certainly show with these two scholarship winners.
Tuesday, August 01, 2006
Nature and Nurture in IQ Scores
Since many gifted programs use IQ scores to judge admission, people attach great importance to the number. They also spend a lot of time debating nature vs. nurture. Children from well-to-do families broadly have higher tested IQs than those from less well-to-do families. But are people well-to-do because they have higher IQs, and so pass these intelligence genes on to their children, or do well-to-do families give their kids lots of opportunities, which raises IQs?
Identical twin studies over the past century have reached a conclusion that about 75% of IQ is a result of nature (genes) not nurture. But an interesting recent article in the New York Times called After the Bell Curve suggests that viewing nature and nurture as separate forces is misleading.
Scientists have been discovering over the past few years that we can actually turn on and off gene expression through our behavior. My husband told me about a recent study on shyness genes that found approximately the following (I'm trying to remember the numbers right and can't guarantee accuracy, but they're not far off): Of people who are shy, 90% have a certain gene. But of people who have that gene in the broader population, only 50% are shy. Apparently, if you have the gene to be shy, but your parents don't let you hide around their legs in social situations, and make a point of making you play with other kids, you won't necessarily grow up shy. Even though your genes would seem to indicate you would.
IQ scores follow a similar pattern. A child who would naturally have a high IQ who is born into a family of professionals who read to him, talk to him, ask him questions and otherwise encourage his little brain to grow, will express those genes for intelligence. A child who would naturally have a high IQ who is put in, say, an orphanage where children do not receive enough attention, will not express those genes for intelligence. A child who would naturally have a lower IQ who is adopted into a high-IQ family will still have a lower IQ than the rest of the family (as the twin studies have shown). However, if his parents provide an enriched environment, his IQ will be somewhat higher than if he'd been in a family that didn't provide such an environment.
The problem with finding that nature and nurture both matter is that people can use that reality to justify whatever they want. One could certainly make an argument in favor of early interventions for babies and toddlers in at-risk families. Providing them with an enriched environment could allow these children to express any genes for intelligence they have.
On the other hand, plenty of parents of gifted kids have been told by teachers that differences in abilities exhibited by children in kindergarten don't matter, and shouldn't be addressed, because "they all even out" over time. If nurture matters, and the teacher plans to provide a very enriching environment, she may believe that overcoming all IQ differences is possible (even though that's not what any of these studies show).
But parents of gifted kids could also use the nurture argument to their advantage. Children with naturally high IQs who are put in more enriching classes are more likely to express these genes. That seems to be a good argument for better gifted education. These kids can't be left to "fend for themselves." If they are, their actual intelligence will be less than it could be.
Since many gifted programs use IQ scores to judge admission, people attach great importance to the number. They also spend a lot of time debating nature vs. nurture. Children from well-to-do families broadly have higher tested IQs than those from less well-to-do families. But are people well-to-do because they have higher IQs, and so pass these intelligence genes on to their children, or do well-to-do families give their kids lots of opportunities, which raises IQs?
Identical twin studies over the past century have reached a conclusion that about 75% of IQ is a result of nature (genes) not nurture. But an interesting recent article in the New York Times called After the Bell Curve suggests that viewing nature and nurture as separate forces is misleading.
Scientists have been discovering over the past few years that we can actually turn on and off gene expression through our behavior. My husband told me about a recent study on shyness genes that found approximately the following (I'm trying to remember the numbers right and can't guarantee accuracy, but they're not far off): Of people who are shy, 90% have a certain gene. But of people who have that gene in the broader population, only 50% are shy. Apparently, if you have the gene to be shy, but your parents don't let you hide around their legs in social situations, and make a point of making you play with other kids, you won't necessarily grow up shy. Even though your genes would seem to indicate you would.
IQ scores follow a similar pattern. A child who would naturally have a high IQ who is born into a family of professionals who read to him, talk to him, ask him questions and otherwise encourage his little brain to grow, will express those genes for intelligence. A child who would naturally have a high IQ who is put in, say, an orphanage where children do not receive enough attention, will not express those genes for intelligence. A child who would naturally have a lower IQ who is adopted into a high-IQ family will still have a lower IQ than the rest of the family (as the twin studies have shown). However, if his parents provide an enriched environment, his IQ will be somewhat higher than if he'd been in a family that didn't provide such an environment.
The problem with finding that nature and nurture both matter is that people can use that reality to justify whatever they want. One could certainly make an argument in favor of early interventions for babies and toddlers in at-risk families. Providing them with an enriched environment could allow these children to express any genes for intelligence they have.
On the other hand, plenty of parents of gifted kids have been told by teachers that differences in abilities exhibited by children in kindergarten don't matter, and shouldn't be addressed, because "they all even out" over time. If nurture matters, and the teacher plans to provide a very enriching environment, she may believe that overcoming all IQ differences is possible (even though that's not what any of these studies show).
But parents of gifted kids could also use the nurture argument to their advantage. Children with naturally high IQs who are put in more enriching classes are more likely to express these genes. That seems to be a good argument for better gifted education. These kids can't be left to "fend for themselves." If they are, their actual intelligence will be less than it could be.
Thursday, July 27, 2006
Teacher Training
I recently came across an article in the Examiner about one district's efforts to give its gifted program teachers special certification. You can read the piece here. By next school year, all the gifted teachers in Carroll County, a district in Maryland, will have taken a six course sequence through Johns Hopkins (a university with a deep interest in gifted education, thanks to the pioneering efforts of the late Dr. Julian Stanley).
Teacher training is actually one of the biggest problem areas in gifted education. It's also one that's not talked about much. As the Davidsons and I wrote in Genius Denied, there are two main issues.
First, since most gifted children remain in regular classrooms, all teachers need training on how to best teach gifted children, just as they learn about teaching other populations. Yet very few teachers colleges require any courses on gifted learners. Few even offer them.
Second, since we hope that eventually gifted children will be in accelerated academic classes created specifically for them, this country needs a critical mass of teachers specifically certified in gifted ed. Yet many teachers colleges don't offer concentrations in gifted education, and only half the states offer certification in this area.
So it's good that Carroll County is going above the requirements to make sure its teachers know how to best run classrooms of accelerated learners. A Gifted Child Quarterly study a few years ago found that teachers with three to five graduate courses in gifted education were significantly more effective in instruction, and in creating a positive classroom environment, then teachers with no specialized coursework.
In general I'm wary of teachers colleges (they can be ideologically strange places). I'm also wary of requirements that people spend years learning to be teachers (given the shortage of math and science teachers, summer boot camps and night classes for mid-career professionals are probably fine). But I don't like that gifted education gets shut out of programs that almost all teachers have to go through. It's good to see that in Carroll County, they're not.
I recently came across an article in the Examiner about one district's efforts to give its gifted program teachers special certification. You can read the piece here. By next school year, all the gifted teachers in Carroll County, a district in Maryland, will have taken a six course sequence through Johns Hopkins (a university with a deep interest in gifted education, thanks to the pioneering efforts of the late Dr. Julian Stanley).
Teacher training is actually one of the biggest problem areas in gifted education. It's also one that's not talked about much. As the Davidsons and I wrote in Genius Denied, there are two main issues.
First, since most gifted children remain in regular classrooms, all teachers need training on how to best teach gifted children, just as they learn about teaching other populations. Yet very few teachers colleges require any courses on gifted learners. Few even offer them.
Second, since we hope that eventually gifted children will be in accelerated academic classes created specifically for them, this country needs a critical mass of teachers specifically certified in gifted ed. Yet many teachers colleges don't offer concentrations in gifted education, and only half the states offer certification in this area.
So it's good that Carroll County is going above the requirements to make sure its teachers know how to best run classrooms of accelerated learners. A Gifted Child Quarterly study a few years ago found that teachers with three to five graduate courses in gifted education were significantly more effective in instruction, and in creating a positive classroom environment, then teachers with no specialized coursework.
In general I'm wary of teachers colleges (they can be ideologically strange places). I'm also wary of requirements that people spend years learning to be teachers (given the shortage of math and science teachers, summer boot camps and night classes for mid-career professionals are probably fine). But I don't like that gifted education gets shut out of programs that almost all teachers have to go through. It's good to see that in Carroll County, they're not.
Tuesday, July 25, 2006
Those Crazy Statistics
The irascible Charles Murray is back today, writing on the op-ed page of the Wall Street Journal about black-white gaps in test scores achieved under No Child Left Behind.
Schools and districts are required to narrow the gap in test scores between various racial groups in order to receive certain levels of funding, or not be penalized. Of course, given the mean scores of different groups, and the number of people in each group, changes in mean scores can have very different effects on the gap, depending on where those means lie. Differences in pass rates, another key factor in NCLB tests, are also subject to the whims of statistics put in the hands of people who have a vested interest in seeing them go one way or the other.
For instance, Murray quotes Pres. Bush's statements about Texas. There, 73% of white students passed the math test in 1994, while only 38% of African-American students passed it. In 2003, Bush was happy to note, the gap was only 10%. That seems great, indicating that African-American students have made a great deal of progress -- more than their white counterparts. But it's somewhat misleading. Say in one state, the pass score is relatively low -- where many students will be able to achieve it. If one group of students has a higher mean score than another, raising each group's mean score by, say, 10 points, will naturally narrow the pass-rate gap by more than that (if the scores follow standard bell curve distributions). On the other hand, if a pass rate is set particularly low in another state (say, only 40% of all students will pass), a gain in everyone's test scores could in fact make the gap appear worse, Murray notes.
Both districts under that scenario will have improved test scores. But because the second district will appear not to have closed the gap between groups, it could suffer penalties, while the first one will be rewarded.
Studies that have come out earlier this year about state NCLB tests have found that indeed, most states are making them ridiculously easy to pass in order to make sure that pass rates are high and racial gaps appear to narrow. Given how states are citing NCLB as a reason to move away from gifted education to focus on improving everyone's scores, it would be nice to get slightly more meaningful data. As Murray notes of NCLB, in practice, "It holds good students hostage to the performance of the least talented, at a time when the economic future of the country depends more than ever on the performance of the most talented."
The irascible Charles Murray is back today, writing on the op-ed page of the Wall Street Journal about black-white gaps in test scores achieved under No Child Left Behind.
Schools and districts are required to narrow the gap in test scores between various racial groups in order to receive certain levels of funding, or not be penalized. Of course, given the mean scores of different groups, and the number of people in each group, changes in mean scores can have very different effects on the gap, depending on where those means lie. Differences in pass rates, another key factor in NCLB tests, are also subject to the whims of statistics put in the hands of people who have a vested interest in seeing them go one way or the other.
For instance, Murray quotes Pres. Bush's statements about Texas. There, 73% of white students passed the math test in 1994, while only 38% of African-American students passed it. In 2003, Bush was happy to note, the gap was only 10%. That seems great, indicating that African-American students have made a great deal of progress -- more than their white counterparts. But it's somewhat misleading. Say in one state, the pass score is relatively low -- where many students will be able to achieve it. If one group of students has a higher mean score than another, raising each group's mean score by, say, 10 points, will naturally narrow the pass-rate gap by more than that (if the scores follow standard bell curve distributions). On the other hand, if a pass rate is set particularly low in another state (say, only 40% of all students will pass), a gain in everyone's test scores could in fact make the gap appear worse, Murray notes.
Both districts under that scenario will have improved test scores. But because the second district will appear not to have closed the gap between groups, it could suffer penalties, while the first one will be rewarded.
Studies that have come out earlier this year about state NCLB tests have found that indeed, most states are making them ridiculously easy to pass in order to make sure that pass rates are high and racial gaps appear to narrow. Given how states are citing NCLB as a reason to move away from gifted education to focus on improving everyone's scores, it would be nice to get slightly more meaningful data. As Murray notes of NCLB, in practice, "It holds good students hostage to the performance of the least talented, at a time when the economic future of the country depends more than ever on the performance of the most talented."
Friday, July 21, 2006
Nerds and Geeks
So the other day I took my computer to Best Buy’s famed “Geek Squad” for repair. Leave aside the fact that they didn’t manage to repair it (apparently there was a motherboard problem; I’ve got a shiny new laptop being shipped to me now). They were a collection of nice, normal-looking young men and women. Their advertisement posters, however, were another story. In them, characters in horrible glasses, hiked up black polyester pants and white socks promised to fix your computer, rain or shine, “Sci-fi convention in town or not.”
Now, I suppose that Best Buy’s ad designers are using “geek” in an affectionate way, These are their colleagues, after all. Referring to these very normal-looking individuals as geeks is likely just a way to make the public think they’re competent when it comes to fixing computers.
Indeed, broadly, there seems to be a move by young people to reclaim words like “nerd” and “geek” and use them positively. I’ve been reading a number of articles recently on “nerd camp.” For three of my early teenage summers, I attended the Center for Talent Development’s summer camps at Northwestern University, studying geometry, computers and literature with gifted kids from all over the Midwest.
We never called it nerd camp. But now kids do so freely, telling reporters that’s what they call similar camps at Duke, Johns Hopkins and other universities.
When people reclaim words, they take some of the sting out of them. That’s a good thing. But I can’t help thinking that when gifted young people themselves use such words frequently, other people feel they’ve got a license to do so, too. As things tend to go, these names will then be aimed at younger gifted kids, particularly ones who haven’t made their peace with the whole thing yet. So while I grant that the Geek Squad is a great brand name, I wish they and the nerd-camp attendees would have come up with another way to talk about themselves.
So the other day I took my computer to Best Buy’s famed “Geek Squad” for repair. Leave aside the fact that they didn’t manage to repair it (apparently there was a motherboard problem; I’ve got a shiny new laptop being shipped to me now). They were a collection of nice, normal-looking young men and women. Their advertisement posters, however, were another story. In them, characters in horrible glasses, hiked up black polyester pants and white socks promised to fix your computer, rain or shine, “Sci-fi convention in town or not.”
Now, I suppose that Best Buy’s ad designers are using “geek” in an affectionate way, These are their colleagues, after all. Referring to these very normal-looking individuals as geeks is likely just a way to make the public think they’re competent when it comes to fixing computers.
Indeed, broadly, there seems to be a move by young people to reclaim words like “nerd” and “geek” and use them positively. I’ve been reading a number of articles recently on “nerd camp.” For three of my early teenage summers, I attended the Center for Talent Development’s summer camps at Northwestern University, studying geometry, computers and literature with gifted kids from all over the Midwest.
We never called it nerd camp. But now kids do so freely, telling reporters that’s what they call similar camps at Duke, Johns Hopkins and other universities.
When people reclaim words, they take some of the sting out of them. That’s a good thing. But I can’t help thinking that when gifted young people themselves use such words frequently, other people feel they’ve got a license to do so, too. As things tend to go, these names will then be aimed at younger gifted kids, particularly ones who haven’t made their peace with the whole thing yet. So while I grant that the Geek Squad is a great brand name, I wish they and the nerd-camp attendees would have come up with another way to talk about themselves.
Tuesday, July 18, 2006
Gifted Students Shy from Fast-Tracking
Fans of Prof. Miraca Gross (of the University of New South Wales in Australia) will be happy to learn she and her colleagues are undertaking a study of how Australian schools deal with gifted children. Gross has spent years advocating radical acceleration for profoundly gifted kids. Of course, in Australia, as in the U.S., sometimes it feels like shouting into the wind, according a recent
article in The Australian.
“I'd rather be doing well in an easier grade than be behind in a harder one,” one girl named Ceili told the newspaper.
Her attitude, the paper notes, reflects that of many educators, who worry that acceleration puts too much “pressure” on students.
For whatever reason, in the past few years, mass media in the US -- and Australia, which does not escape the English language media echo chamber -- have decided that kids are under too much pressure. They feel pressured to do well on tests, get into good colleges, participate in the right activites, etc.
Of course, given children’s actual test scores, the percentage of kids enrolled in college who need remedial classes and other such realities, I’d say they could use a bit more pressure. Or maybe any pressure they’re feeling isn’t applied in a direction that achieves results. I’d also point out that children in the US watch an average of 4 hours of TV a day, and some measurements in Australia have clocked well over two hours a day for children. If families turned off the tube, some of that time pressure might be alleviated.
But I digress. Fortunately, Prof. Gross has several good responses for those who worry that accelerated gifted kids will be under too much pressure of the kind news stories claim all kids are under. “Most of these kids would be topping the class if they went up a grade. They don't realise that,” she says.
And then the kicker: “Teachers equate acceleration with pushing the child. Teachers are afraid of hurting a kid by pushing them, so they feel better doing nothing -- but that can in fact do more harm.”
Hopefully, Prof. Gross’s new study will lay the ground work for acceleration becoming the default option for kids who need more challenge -- the accepted option -- rather than something strange and “pressured.”
Fans of Prof. Miraca Gross (of the University of New South Wales in Australia) will be happy to learn she and her colleagues are undertaking a study of how Australian schools deal with gifted children. Gross has spent years advocating radical acceleration for profoundly gifted kids. Of course, in Australia, as in the U.S., sometimes it feels like shouting into the wind, according a recent
article in The Australian.
“I'd rather be doing well in an easier grade than be behind in a harder one,” one girl named Ceili told the newspaper.
Her attitude, the paper notes, reflects that of many educators, who worry that acceleration puts too much “pressure” on students.
For whatever reason, in the past few years, mass media in the US -- and Australia, which does not escape the English language media echo chamber -- have decided that kids are under too much pressure. They feel pressured to do well on tests, get into good colleges, participate in the right activites, etc.
Of course, given children’s actual test scores, the percentage of kids enrolled in college who need remedial classes and other such realities, I’d say they could use a bit more pressure. Or maybe any pressure they’re feeling isn’t applied in a direction that achieves results. I’d also point out that children in the US watch an average of 4 hours of TV a day, and some measurements in Australia have clocked well over two hours a day for children. If families turned off the tube, some of that time pressure might be alleviated.
But I digress. Fortunately, Prof. Gross has several good responses for those who worry that accelerated gifted kids will be under too much pressure of the kind news stories claim all kids are under. “Most of these kids would be topping the class if they went up a grade. They don't realise that,” she says.
And then the kicker: “Teachers equate acceleration with pushing the child. Teachers are afraid of hurting a kid by pushing them, so they feel better doing nothing -- but that can in fact do more harm.”
Hopefully, Prof. Gross’s new study will lay the ground work for acceleration becoming the default option for kids who need more challenge -- the accepted option -- rather than something strange and “pressured.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
