Zooming Ahead Down Under
In response to the many international readers of Gifted Exchange who asked me to be a bit less U.S.-centric, I'm proud to bring you this story from Australia.
In the land down under, there's a saying about "cutting down the tall poppies." Namely, you don't want to stick out, and if you do, others will soon cut you down to size. That's certainly not a universal Ozzie sentiment, but unfortunately, it turned out to be school district policy for a gifted girl named Gracia Malaxetxebarria. You can read her story here.
Gracia, 12, was bored in school and wanted to move ahead a few grade levels. As the article points out, there's some precedent for this in Australia. Terence Tao, who just won the Fields medal in mathematics, was able to skip ahead and start college while he was still a pre-teen. But Gracia's Brisbane school didn't want to allow it. So her family sued and won the right for their daughter to skip grades as necessary.
As with many court cases, there are a few oddities and over reaches involved. I came across another article on the case, here, which says Gracia's mother pushed the court to give her a new home, a car and $500,000 compensation for age discrimination. The court declined to agree to that. But Gracia will be allowed to zoom ahead.
Of course, alert readers may be asking what's the difference between this case and the Levi Clancy case I wrote about last week. Don't both involve using the courts to advance gifted kids' interest?
From my reading, I believe that in the Australian case, the courts were being asked to address the case of an individual who was not given due process and indeed was treated differently than other children because of her age. Gracia had transferred to a private school and accelerated a few years; the public school completely ignored the evidence that she was earning As and Bs in her new grade. Normally, a child would be allowed to transfer to a public school from a private school at the same grade she was currently attending. Her public school was essentially changing its own policies to avoid accelerating the child. The court said that wasn't fair. No one was asking the courts to decree what the Brisbane authorities should spend their public monies on, as the voucher case does in California. I believe that's a question best answered democratically.
But hopefully the ruling in the Gracia case will encourage Australian schools to be more open to acceleration. Tall poppies deserve to grow no less than any other flowers.
Monday, October 30, 2006
Wednesday, October 25, 2006
The Levi Clancy story (and school vouchers)
Levi Clancy and his mom, Leila, are no strangers to political controversy. In 2002, they lobbied the California state legislature to pass a law allowing any student, of any age, to take the state's high school exit exam and be considered a graduate upon passing. The law authorized schools and districts to include community college classes in gifted kids' individual education plans (IEPs) and also to pay for these classes. The legislature passed the law unanimously, but then-Gov. Gray Davis vetoed it, saying it was too expensive (Levi was already attending community college classes by that time).
Four years later, the family is now taking a different approach to gifted advocacy. They are suing the state to create a mandate for vouchers to be offered to gifted students whose needs cannot be met in the normal K-12 schools. The case was argued before the California First District Court of Appeals in Sacramento yesterday. Leila's attorneys are arguing that she cannot afford to pay tuition at UCLA, and Levi Clancy needs the rigor of a 4-year college program. You can read a press release on the case here.
I have a lot of sympathy for the case. I'm in favor of school vouchers generally, not just for highly gifted kids. As a practical matter, even if California's taxpayers fully funded Levi Clancy's $9,000 UCLA education, they'd be saving money, as the per pupil attendance funding for the Los Angeles Unified School District is about $12,000. There's a good equal protection argument to be made that California residents are entitled to 13 years of education at public expense, wherever that education is obtained. Some California students with disabilities attend private schools at public expense because their local schools can't meet their needs. This case is also about a child with special needs.
On the other hand, I don't like the idea of using the courts to force issues that certainly can be decided democratically. Given how much support Leila Levi's lobbying efforts found in the California legislature a few years ago, going that route might be worth another try. California has a different governor these days, one who might be more amenable to a voucher plan for gifted kids. I understand the impulse to use the courts on both the left (witness the various cases about adequate school funding making their way through the courts) and the right (vouchers). It's clean and decisive (if not necessarily quick). But in my opinion -- and I realize a lot of blog readers will disagree -- solutions for gifted kids will enjoy broader support if they're obtained democratically than if they're forced on a state by the courts.
Levi Clancy and his mom, Leila, are no strangers to political controversy. In 2002, they lobbied the California state legislature to pass a law allowing any student, of any age, to take the state's high school exit exam and be considered a graduate upon passing. The law authorized schools and districts to include community college classes in gifted kids' individual education plans (IEPs) and also to pay for these classes. The legislature passed the law unanimously, but then-Gov. Gray Davis vetoed it, saying it was too expensive (Levi was already attending community college classes by that time).
Four years later, the family is now taking a different approach to gifted advocacy. They are suing the state to create a mandate for vouchers to be offered to gifted students whose needs cannot be met in the normal K-12 schools. The case was argued before the California First District Court of Appeals in Sacramento yesterday. Leila's attorneys are arguing that she cannot afford to pay tuition at UCLA, and Levi Clancy needs the rigor of a 4-year college program. You can read a press release on the case here.
I have a lot of sympathy for the case. I'm in favor of school vouchers generally, not just for highly gifted kids. As a practical matter, even if California's taxpayers fully funded Levi Clancy's $9,000 UCLA education, they'd be saving money, as the per pupil attendance funding for the Los Angeles Unified School District is about $12,000. There's a good equal protection argument to be made that California residents are entitled to 13 years of education at public expense, wherever that education is obtained. Some California students with disabilities attend private schools at public expense because their local schools can't meet their needs. This case is also about a child with special needs.
On the other hand, I don't like the idea of using the courts to force issues that certainly can be decided democratically. Given how much support Leila Levi's lobbying efforts found in the California legislature a few years ago, going that route might be worth another try. California has a different governor these days, one who might be more amenable to a voucher plan for gifted kids. I understand the impulse to use the courts on both the left (witness the various cases about adequate school funding making their way through the courts) and the right (vouchers). It's clean and decisive (if not necessarily quick). But in my opinion -- and I realize a lot of blog readers will disagree -- solutions for gifted kids will enjoy broader support if they're obtained democratically than if they're forced on a state by the courts.
Monday, October 23, 2006
A Better Approach to Multiple Intelligences
A few weeks ago, I complained about the overuse of the theory of Multiple Intelligences (MI) in schools. MI identifies 9 main prisms through which children might learn. Traditional schooling, MI proponents say, focuses too much on logical and linguistic intelligences. While there's nothing wrong with the theory that every child can learn, and many children learn in different ways, MI has often been used as a Trojan Horse to bash gifted programs. After all, if there are multiple intelligences, then every child can be gifted in something. And if all children are gifted, what's the point of gifted education?
Today I came across a story about the Madison Simis Elementary School in Arizona that's attempting to address the idea of different gifts in a more thoughtful way. You can read the Arizona Republic story on the school here.
Principal Joyce Flowers told the AZ Republic that "Every child has a talent... Sometimes it's just a matter of discovering it." But rather than use this theory as an excuse to keep heterogeneous classes in all subjects, the school has actually hired additional gifted instructors, and created advanced classes in multiple different topics. Kids are screened for giftedness in each area individually. If the child shows promise, she's put in the accelerated class for that subject. At the same time, she can attend the regular level classes in other subjects if the tests show that's where she should be.
This careful screening comes a lot closer to the idea of matching the education to the child than either the heterogeneous classes many people champion, or the "130-IQ and up" globally gifted screen many gifted programs use. At Madison Simis Elementary School, it appears that a child who needs more challenge in a particular subject area gets it. While I've not observed the school in person to know if this works in reality (as opposed to in theory) it sounds like a pretty good idea.
Do any of your children attend schools that screen by different subject areas for giftedness?
A few weeks ago, I complained about the overuse of the theory of Multiple Intelligences (MI) in schools. MI identifies 9 main prisms through which children might learn. Traditional schooling, MI proponents say, focuses too much on logical and linguistic intelligences. While there's nothing wrong with the theory that every child can learn, and many children learn in different ways, MI has often been used as a Trojan Horse to bash gifted programs. After all, if there are multiple intelligences, then every child can be gifted in something. And if all children are gifted, what's the point of gifted education?
Today I came across a story about the Madison Simis Elementary School in Arizona that's attempting to address the idea of different gifts in a more thoughtful way. You can read the Arizona Republic story on the school here.
Principal Joyce Flowers told the AZ Republic that "Every child has a talent... Sometimes it's just a matter of discovering it." But rather than use this theory as an excuse to keep heterogeneous classes in all subjects, the school has actually hired additional gifted instructors, and created advanced classes in multiple different topics. Kids are screened for giftedness in each area individually. If the child shows promise, she's put in the accelerated class for that subject. At the same time, she can attend the regular level classes in other subjects if the tests show that's where she should be.
This careful screening comes a lot closer to the idea of matching the education to the child than either the heterogeneous classes many people champion, or the "130-IQ and up" globally gifted screen many gifted programs use. At Madison Simis Elementary School, it appears that a child who needs more challenge in a particular subject area gets it. While I've not observed the school in person to know if this works in reality (as opposed to in theory) it sounds like a pretty good idea.
Do any of your children attend schools that screen by different subject areas for giftedness?
Wednesday, October 18, 2006
The Handwriting on the Wall
A recent Washington Post article chronicled the decline of cursive and penmanship instruction in schools.
Apparently, now that an essay is required on the SAT, only 15% of test takers wrote their samples in cursive. Everyone else used block print letters. Why? This is the first generation to grow up with computers available since birth. Most children now type even their early writing assignments. So while schools do a cursory look at cursive, they don't spend hours and hours on it the way they used to.
I have mixed feelings about this, particularly as it relates to gifted children. On one hand, typing requires a lot less fine motor coordination than cursive (and voice recognition software can type for people who can't master a keyboard -- an option not available with pen and paper). One of the things that holds many young gifted writers back is that their fine motor skills haven't developed as fast as their brains and their imaginations. You may have a great story in your head, but it's easy to get frustrated when your fingers make little chicken scratches on a piece of paper. Furthermore, as the Post article notes, studies show that people judge writing more harshly when the handwriting used is poor. Since this has absolutely nothing to do with the content, the widespread use of typing, even in the early grades, should level the playing field in a way that allows insight to triumph over coordination.
On the other hand... My family spent half a school year in California when I was in third grade. My elementary school class in North Carolina learned cursive while I was gone. My California class learned it right after I left. Consequently, I had to (mostly) teach myself the letters. I still am not sure why upper-case Qs look like 2s, but I did discover that I really like making those little squiggles. I write in my journal in cursive. The letters flow quickly in a way that they don't in printed block letters. Research backs this up. Free-flowing letters, the Post notes, correspond to simpler, shorter compositions (that's a good thing, as any teacher who's had to correct a windy, overwrought essay can tell you). Even if you ultimately intend to type, the quick nature of cursive writing has benefits for rough drafts. You can get your thoughts down quickly, then cross out and move sentences around with arrows as you wish.
I'm curious what other people think about the decline of cursive, and whether it's a good or bad thing for young writers. Are your children's schools teaching the topic?
A recent Washington Post article chronicled the decline of cursive and penmanship instruction in schools.
Apparently, now that an essay is required on the SAT, only 15% of test takers wrote their samples in cursive. Everyone else used block print letters. Why? This is the first generation to grow up with computers available since birth. Most children now type even their early writing assignments. So while schools do a cursory look at cursive, they don't spend hours and hours on it the way they used to.
I have mixed feelings about this, particularly as it relates to gifted children. On one hand, typing requires a lot less fine motor coordination than cursive (and voice recognition software can type for people who can't master a keyboard -- an option not available with pen and paper). One of the things that holds many young gifted writers back is that their fine motor skills haven't developed as fast as their brains and their imaginations. You may have a great story in your head, but it's easy to get frustrated when your fingers make little chicken scratches on a piece of paper. Furthermore, as the Post article notes, studies show that people judge writing more harshly when the handwriting used is poor. Since this has absolutely nothing to do with the content, the widespread use of typing, even in the early grades, should level the playing field in a way that allows insight to triumph over coordination.
On the other hand... My family spent half a school year in California when I was in third grade. My elementary school class in North Carolina learned cursive while I was gone. My California class learned it right after I left. Consequently, I had to (mostly) teach myself the letters. I still am not sure why upper-case Qs look like 2s, but I did discover that I really like making those little squiggles. I write in my journal in cursive. The letters flow quickly in a way that they don't in printed block letters. Research backs this up. Free-flowing letters, the Post notes, correspond to simpler, shorter compositions (that's a good thing, as any teacher who's had to correct a windy, overwrought essay can tell you). Even if you ultimately intend to type, the quick nature of cursive writing has benefits for rough drafts. You can get your thoughts down quickly, then cross out and move sentences around with arrows as you wish.
I'm curious what other people think about the decline of cursive, and whether it's a good or bad thing for young writers. Are your children's schools teaching the topic?
Monday, October 16, 2006
What to do when your budget grows
Some districts in Arizona have recently been faced with the kind of problem educators love to have: The state legislature appropriated more money for gifted education, and all of their budgets are about to rise.
The districts and schools intend to do very different things with the money, however. Some will be more helpful for gifted kids than others. For instance, the Scottsdale Unified School District expects $81,000 for its budget this year, up from $37,000 last year. It plans to use the windfall on "supplemental material," according to this list which ran in the Arizona Republic. Perhaps these workbooks and curriculum packages will be helpful. But I'm inclined to give my thumbs up to the Paradise Valley Unified School District, which plans to spend its $105,000 (up from $44,000) on opening more separate classrooms for gifted students.
When James Kulik of the University of Michigan reviewed 23 major studies on ability grouping a few years ago, he found that gifted students placed in enriched classes gained 4-5 months academically on gifted students left in regular classrooms (over the course of a year). Gifted students placed in accelerated classes (which were trying to move ahead more quickly) gained as much as a whole year compared with comparable students left in regular classrooms.
In other words, we know that gifted kids benefit from self-contained classes. So creating them should be the first order of business for any school that doesn't have them and receives extra money. Hopefully the other Arizona districts will figure this out.
Some districts in Arizona have recently been faced with the kind of problem educators love to have: The state legislature appropriated more money for gifted education, and all of their budgets are about to rise.
The districts and schools intend to do very different things with the money, however. Some will be more helpful for gifted kids than others. For instance, the Scottsdale Unified School District expects $81,000 for its budget this year, up from $37,000 last year. It plans to use the windfall on "supplemental material," according to this list which ran in the Arizona Republic. Perhaps these workbooks and curriculum packages will be helpful. But I'm inclined to give my thumbs up to the Paradise Valley Unified School District, which plans to spend its $105,000 (up from $44,000) on opening more separate classrooms for gifted students.
When James Kulik of the University of Michigan reviewed 23 major studies on ability grouping a few years ago, he found that gifted students placed in enriched classes gained 4-5 months academically on gifted students left in regular classrooms (over the course of a year). Gifted students placed in accelerated classes (which were trying to move ahead more quickly) gained as much as a whole year compared with comparable students left in regular classrooms.
In other words, we know that gifted kids benefit from self-contained classes. So creating them should be the first order of business for any school that doesn't have them and receives extra money. Hopefully the other Arizona districts will figure this out.
What to do when your budget grows
Some districts in Arizona have recently been faced with the kind of problem educators love to have: The state legislature appropriated more money for gifted education, and all of their budgets are about to rise.
The districts and schools intend to do very different things with the money, however. Some will be more helpful for gifted kids than others. For instance, the Scottsdale Unified School District expects $81,000 for its budget this year, up from $37,000 last year. It plans to use the windfall on "supplemental material," according to this list which ran in the Arizona Republic. Perhaps these workbooks and curriculum packages will be helpful. But I'm inclined to give my thumbs up to the Paradise Valley Unified School District, which plans to spend its $105,000 (up from $44,000) on opening more separate classrooms for gifted students.
When James Kulik of the University of Michigan reviewed 23 major studies on ability grouping a few years ago, he found that gifted students placed in enriched classes gained 4-5 months academically on gifted students left in regular classrooms (over the course of a year). Gifted students placed in accelerated classes (which were trying to move ahead more quickly) gained as much as a whole year compared with comparable students left in regular classrooms.
In other words, we know that gifted kids benefit from self-contained classes. So creating them should be the first order of business for any school that doesn't have them and receives extra money. Hopefully the other Arizona districts will figure this out.
Some districts in Arizona have recently been faced with the kind of problem educators love to have: The state legislature appropriated more money for gifted education, and all of their budgets are about to rise.
The districts and schools intend to do very different things with the money, however. Some will be more helpful for gifted kids than others. For instance, the Scottsdale Unified School District expects $81,000 for its budget this year, up from $37,000 last year. It plans to use the windfall on "supplemental material," according to this list which ran in the Arizona Republic. Perhaps these workbooks and curriculum packages will be helpful. But I'm inclined to give my thumbs up to the Paradise Valley Unified School District, which plans to spend its $105,000 (up from $44,000) on opening more separate classrooms for gifted students.
When James Kulik of the University of Michigan reviewed 23 major studies on ability grouping a few years ago, he found that gifted students placed in enriched classes gained 4-5 months academically on gifted students left in regular classrooms (over the course of a year). Gifted students placed in accelerated classes (which were trying to move ahead more quickly) gained as much as a whole year compared with comparable students left in regular classrooms.
In other words, we know that gifted kids benefit from self-contained classes. So creating them should be the first order of business for any school that doesn't have them and receives extra money. Hopefully the other Arizona districts will figure this out.
Thursday, October 12, 2006
Gifted Exchange Turns One
About two weeks ago, Gifted Exchange celebrated its first birthday (it was a small ceremony, no cake!) I've been pleased with the steady levels of traffic the blog is drawing, and the number of posts from readers. Of course, I'd love to see this blog grow, too! So today's post is more of a plea for feedback from those of you who have checked in over the past year:
1. What would you like to see more of on Gifted Exchange?
2. What do you like? Don't like?
3. Did any posts cause you to do something differently or think about something differently? (Which one?)
4. How can I share Gifted Exchange with a broader audience?
I really appreciate any thoughts. You're welcome to email me privately as well: lvanderkam at yahoo dot com. Thanks! Laura
About two weeks ago, Gifted Exchange celebrated its first birthday (it was a small ceremony, no cake!) I've been pleased with the steady levels of traffic the blog is drawing, and the number of posts from readers. Of course, I'd love to see this blog grow, too! So today's post is more of a plea for feedback from those of you who have checked in over the past year:
1. What would you like to see more of on Gifted Exchange?
2. What do you like? Don't like?
3. Did any posts cause you to do something differently or think about something differently? (Which one?)
4. How can I share Gifted Exchange with a broader audience?
I really appreciate any thoughts. You're welcome to email me privately as well: lvanderkam at yahoo dot com. Thanks! Laura
Tuesday, October 10, 2006
More...downtime?
This one will be short, as there are workmen apparently drilling 1,000 tiny holes in the apartment floor above me, then hammering them for good measure, and I'm going to go crazy from the noise if I don't get out of here soon.
But anyway... Time magazine had a fascinating Po Bronson back page essay a few weeks ago pointing out that there are two schools of parenting. There's the Baby Einstein school, and the Barbie school. The Baby Einstein parents get written about a lot in books like Hothouse Kids and the Overachievers. They're the ones allegedly hovering over their precious kids, scheduling every minute, trying to make sure that not one single potential IQ point goes down the drain. But of course, Baby Einstein racked up $200 million in sales last year. Barbie? $3 billion. Barbie represents the vast majority of parents, for whom the question is not whether they're spending too much time with their kids, but whether they're spending enough with both parents working, or in single parent situations. The question is not whether school is too rigorous and the college application process too crazy, but whether school is preparing kids for college at all.
Given the split, why do Hothouse kid parents get all the press? The answer is that journalists who write about parenting issues and education tend to come from the Baby Einstein camp. So it makes sense to them that all parents are seeing their kids get caught up in the AP rat race, the college admission crunch, etc. We all suffer from a bit of myopia from time to time. Now it appears that pediatricians are falling for this line as well (makes sense; they're upper income and highly educated too, just like journalists). The American Academy of Pediatrics released a report the other day calling for more unstructured play time for kids. The message? We need not be super parents, dragging kids to karate, scouts, music lessons, etc. Just playing is fine.
Which is true. But I read the report after re-reading a book called "American Dream" by Jason DeParle about the recent welfare reform bill's effect on a few families. There were some successes. The moms landed reasonable jobs in nursing homes and worked full time, often two shifts to earn some extra cash. But that left the children with hours and hours of unstructured free time after school, the supposed gold standard that the pediatricians are pushing. Trust me, it didn't turn out so well for the children involved.
The truth is, the vast majority of children are not spending their afternoons in karate, scouts and tutoring. And even the ones who are often don't have the 'pushy parent' problem. I heard from one mom recently that her little girl (who's very gifted) was in five after school activities in part because school wasn't challenging her. If the AAP is worried about children's development, meaningful school reform would be a better report topic than the supposed epidemic of super parenting.
This one will be short, as there are workmen apparently drilling 1,000 tiny holes in the apartment floor above me, then hammering them for good measure, and I'm going to go crazy from the noise if I don't get out of here soon.
But anyway... Time magazine had a fascinating Po Bronson back page essay a few weeks ago pointing out that there are two schools of parenting. There's the Baby Einstein school, and the Barbie school. The Baby Einstein parents get written about a lot in books like Hothouse Kids and the Overachievers. They're the ones allegedly hovering over their precious kids, scheduling every minute, trying to make sure that not one single potential IQ point goes down the drain. But of course, Baby Einstein racked up $200 million in sales last year. Barbie? $3 billion. Barbie represents the vast majority of parents, for whom the question is not whether they're spending too much time with their kids, but whether they're spending enough with both parents working, or in single parent situations. The question is not whether school is too rigorous and the college application process too crazy, but whether school is preparing kids for college at all.
Given the split, why do Hothouse kid parents get all the press? The answer is that journalists who write about parenting issues and education tend to come from the Baby Einstein camp. So it makes sense to them that all parents are seeing their kids get caught up in the AP rat race, the college admission crunch, etc. We all suffer from a bit of myopia from time to time. Now it appears that pediatricians are falling for this line as well (makes sense; they're upper income and highly educated too, just like journalists). The American Academy of Pediatrics released a report the other day calling for more unstructured play time for kids. The message? We need not be super parents, dragging kids to karate, scouts, music lessons, etc. Just playing is fine.
Which is true. But I read the report after re-reading a book called "American Dream" by Jason DeParle about the recent welfare reform bill's effect on a few families. There were some successes. The moms landed reasonable jobs in nursing homes and worked full time, often two shifts to earn some extra cash. But that left the children with hours and hours of unstructured free time after school, the supposed gold standard that the pediatricians are pushing. Trust me, it didn't turn out so well for the children involved.
The truth is, the vast majority of children are not spending their afternoons in karate, scouts and tutoring. And even the ones who are often don't have the 'pushy parent' problem. I heard from one mom recently that her little girl (who's very gifted) was in five after school activities in part because school wasn't challenging her. If the AAP is worried about children's development, meaningful school reform would be a better report topic than the supposed epidemic of super parenting.
Friday, October 06, 2006
The Multiple Intelligences Trojan Horse
I've been doing some research on various educational texts online, and I keep coming back to Howard Gardner's theory of Multiple Intelligences (MI). For an explanation of this educational theory, proposed by Harvard prof Gardner in 1983, see this website. Originally there were seven different kinds of intelligence, from linguistic to interpersonal. I believe we're now up to nine different kinds of intelligence, from "naturalist" (being especially sensitive to nature) to existential (asking deep questions about the meaning of life). You can find a chart of all these intelligences here.
The idea is that traditional schooling has focused too much on kids with logical and linguistic talents. But everyone has some dominant intelligence; teachers just have to find the right way to reach the kids. So while some kids might get fractions from a demonstration on the chalkboard, others might prefer to stack blocks of different sizes, and still others might prefer to look at a snail shell.
As an idea, there's nothing wrong with this theory. Certainly, some children are absolutely brilliant when it comes to dealing with other people, or playing sports. These skills will serve you well in life. There's also nothing wrong with the implication that all kids can learn, we just need to figure out what makes them tick.
Unfortunately, though, in reality, the theory of MI has often been used to slam educators and others who focus on gifted education as close-minded. We focus too much on IQ, which largely measures logical and linguistic intelligences. If there are nine intelligences (and who knows, why not more?), then all children can be gifted. And if all children are gifted, what's the point of gifted education? Rather than sequester the highest IQ children off from others, where they'll learn math at an accelerated pace, classrooms should embrace MI, recognizing that all the kids are learning equally, just in their own ways.
This is a problem because gifted education isn't terribly popular among the educational powers that be. It doesn't take much for a school system to decide that gifted education doesn't fit the right philosophy. So MI has become a Trojan Horse for undermining gifted education. I guess theorizing from Harvard, it's easy to forget the boredom bright children feel when they're forced to learn about, say, the former Soviet Socialist Republics by coloring a map of them. Maybe that's nurturing artistic intelligence. Or maybe it's lazy teaching with a gloss of theory put on top. Sure, all kids can learn. But boring bright kids does nothing to help the others.
I've been doing some research on various educational texts online, and I keep coming back to Howard Gardner's theory of Multiple Intelligences (MI). For an explanation of this educational theory, proposed by Harvard prof Gardner in 1983, see this website. Originally there were seven different kinds of intelligence, from linguistic to interpersonal. I believe we're now up to nine different kinds of intelligence, from "naturalist" (being especially sensitive to nature) to existential (asking deep questions about the meaning of life). You can find a chart of all these intelligences here.
The idea is that traditional schooling has focused too much on kids with logical and linguistic talents. But everyone has some dominant intelligence; teachers just have to find the right way to reach the kids. So while some kids might get fractions from a demonstration on the chalkboard, others might prefer to stack blocks of different sizes, and still others might prefer to look at a snail shell.
As an idea, there's nothing wrong with this theory. Certainly, some children are absolutely brilliant when it comes to dealing with other people, or playing sports. These skills will serve you well in life. There's also nothing wrong with the implication that all kids can learn, we just need to figure out what makes them tick.
Unfortunately, though, in reality, the theory of MI has often been used to slam educators and others who focus on gifted education as close-minded. We focus too much on IQ, which largely measures logical and linguistic intelligences. If there are nine intelligences (and who knows, why not more?), then all children can be gifted. And if all children are gifted, what's the point of gifted education? Rather than sequester the highest IQ children off from others, where they'll learn math at an accelerated pace, classrooms should embrace MI, recognizing that all the kids are learning equally, just in their own ways.
This is a problem because gifted education isn't terribly popular among the educational powers that be. It doesn't take much for a school system to decide that gifted education doesn't fit the right philosophy. So MI has become a Trojan Horse for undermining gifted education. I guess theorizing from Harvard, it's easy to forget the boredom bright children feel when they're forced to learn about, say, the former Soviet Socialist Republics by coloring a map of them. Maybe that's nurturing artistic intelligence. Or maybe it's lazy teaching with a gloss of theory put on top. Sure, all kids can learn. But boring bright kids does nothing to help the others.
Wednesday, October 04, 2006
Nobel Americans
Like all of us, I enjoy indulging in a bit of wailing about America losing her competitiveness in research fields. Certainly the school situation isn't good over all, and the conditions some bright young scientists must endure in their primary and secondary schools is inexplicable.
On the other hand, American researchers have been having a pretty good year on the Nobel Prize front. Indeed, they've swept the awards. Roger Kornberg of Stanford's School of Medicine won for chemistry, Craig Mello at U Mass Med school and Andrew Fire of Stanford won for medicine, and the physics winners, John C. Mather of NASA and George Smoot of Lawrence Berkeley National Lab were announced to the public yesterday. These physicists have done groundbreaking work on the small temperature variations in the cosmic microwave background that fills our universe. The thinking is that this background is lingering evidence of the Big Bang. Studying it is like studying our universe's baby pictures.
Obviously, there's a lot of great research going on at America's universities, at NASA, and at the national labs. The question is how to translate this spirit of inquiry into science at the student level, so American scientists do Nobel quality work in the future. Equipment is expensive. Talented, well-trained teachers are in short supply. Even chemistry sets are under attack (see the Gifted Exchange post on that from a few months ago).
I believe that partnerships between universities and schools will need to be a big part of the solution. While there are a few good matches out there, unfortunately, they're few and far between. When I was growing up in South Bend, Indiana, my middle and high schools were approximately two miles from Notre Dame, one of the midwest's most prominent research institutions. Yet Notre Dame could have been part of the cosmic microwave background of Northern Indiana for all anyone knew except on football Saturdays. Each institution stays in its little space, like a stereotypical scientist working alone in a lab. But as the many number of pairs of scientists winning Nobel Prizes indicates, real discovery doesn't work that way. Neither should education. Apprenticing local kids to university labs would give the universities free extra hands for simple tasks, and a great education to the students.
Like all of us, I enjoy indulging in a bit of wailing about America losing her competitiveness in research fields. Certainly the school situation isn't good over all, and the conditions some bright young scientists must endure in their primary and secondary schools is inexplicable.
On the other hand, American researchers have been having a pretty good year on the Nobel Prize front. Indeed, they've swept the awards. Roger Kornberg of Stanford's School of Medicine won for chemistry, Craig Mello at U Mass Med school and Andrew Fire of Stanford won for medicine, and the physics winners, John C. Mather of NASA and George Smoot of Lawrence Berkeley National Lab were announced to the public yesterday. These physicists have done groundbreaking work on the small temperature variations in the cosmic microwave background that fills our universe. The thinking is that this background is lingering evidence of the Big Bang. Studying it is like studying our universe's baby pictures.
Obviously, there's a lot of great research going on at America's universities, at NASA, and at the national labs. The question is how to translate this spirit of inquiry into science at the student level, so American scientists do Nobel quality work in the future. Equipment is expensive. Talented, well-trained teachers are in short supply. Even chemistry sets are under attack (see the Gifted Exchange post on that from a few months ago).
I believe that partnerships between universities and schools will need to be a big part of the solution. While there are a few good matches out there, unfortunately, they're few and far between. When I was growing up in South Bend, Indiana, my middle and high schools were approximately two miles from Notre Dame, one of the midwest's most prominent research institutions. Yet Notre Dame could have been part of the cosmic microwave background of Northern Indiana for all anyone knew except on football Saturdays. Each institution stays in its little space, like a stereotypical scientist working alone in a lab. But as the many number of pairs of scientists winning Nobel Prizes indicates, real discovery doesn't work that way. Neither should education. Apprenticing local kids to university labs would give the universities free extra hands for simple tasks, and a great education to the students.
Thursday, September 28, 2006
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?
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?
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
