(cross-posted at www.my168hours.com)
A generation ago, a college degree was the ticket to a comfortable, upper-middle class existence. We believe, as a society, that more education means more income, and in general this is still true. The unemployment rate for college educated people is much lower than for people with less education.
But the returns on a college education have been declining for some time, even as costs have skyrocketed. A college degree is no longer a guarantee of a comfortable existence. Why is this?
Perhaps it is because more people are going to college -- and we cannot all, alas, earn more than average.
But the American Enterprise Institute released an interesting report this month claiming that part of the problem may be how college students spend their time. According to various time diary studies analyzed by researchers Philip Babcock and Mindy Marks, in 1961, students at 4-year colleges spent 24 hours per week studying. By 2003, this had fallen to 14 hours per week.
There could be many plausible explanations for this besides laziness. Perhaps students are working more to pay for school. Perhaps they have more family responsibilities. Perhaps, as the first in their families to go to college, they are facing other obstacles. Perhaps, as more Americans go to college, more people are attending schools that don't require as much study. Perhaps we are majoring in topics that require less study, or perhaps technology has made learning more efficient.
The authors look at each of these explanations, and find that most don't hold up. Students are working more, but even among students who are not employed, study hours have fallen. They have fallen among students whose fathers also went to college, and they have fallen within majors. They have fallen among students who attend the most selective colleges. While it is true that the Internet and word processing make writing papers easier, the bulk of the decline in study hours came prior to the 10 years before the 2003-2005 numbers. It really just appears that students are studying less.
Why? Given that students are paying so much more for college these days (in many cases shouldering staggering debts) you'd think they'd have more skin in the game. The authors posit that perhaps college has become a signaling device for employers -- the fact that you got a degree is more important in the job market than your actual grades. You can work hard in high school to get in, and then coast after that. Perhaps grade inflation contributes to this as well. If you know you'll get an A or a B in most classes, why put in more work, particularly if employers don't care about your grades?
These explanations make sense, but there's a problem with this trend because when you study less, you learn less. And the authors note that there's evidence that when you study less, you earn less too. Which would explain why the returns on a college education are declining.
Monday, August 30, 2010
Thursday, August 26, 2010
Is this gifted education, or just good teaching?
According to a recent article at NorthJersey.com, elementary schools in Wayne, NJ will soon be participating in a new kind of gifted education.
"Students of varying abilities will be engaged via lessons while in the same classroom using their creativity, problem solving, critical thinking, and logical reasoning skills," the article notes. "Faster learners may be given the task of calculating off the tops of their heads what could be bought with $20 from a list of items without using pen and paper. However a student who requires a little more help would be allowed to check their work with a designated "shopkeeper." And students needing more help would be given objects to count during their assessment."
To be fair, the program calls for a once-a-week pull-out as well, but on the whole, this is basic differentiation in the classroom. People like to claim that this "new" way of doing gifted education allows them to reach more students. But shouldn't good teachers be able to differentiate for different students, anyway, without calling it gifted education?
Of course, the problem is that differentiation is difficult to get right. The easier approach is to teach to the middle, which leaves gifted students bored and plenty of other students perplexed. So teaching teachers how to do differentiation well has plenty of merits. But if the goal is to enhance learning for gifted students, it would be easier to do ability grouping instead.
Which leads me to suspect that this is not the goal...
"Students of varying abilities will be engaged via lessons while in the same classroom using their creativity, problem solving, critical thinking, and logical reasoning skills," the article notes. "Faster learners may be given the task of calculating off the tops of their heads what could be bought with $20 from a list of items without using pen and paper. However a student who requires a little more help would be allowed to check their work with a designated "shopkeeper." And students needing more help would be given objects to count during their assessment."
To be fair, the program calls for a once-a-week pull-out as well, but on the whole, this is basic differentiation in the classroom. People like to claim that this "new" way of doing gifted education allows them to reach more students. But shouldn't good teachers be able to differentiate for different students, anyway, without calling it gifted education?
Of course, the problem is that differentiation is difficult to get right. The easier approach is to teach to the middle, which leaves gifted students bored and plenty of other students perplexed. So teaching teachers how to do differentiation well has plenty of merits. But if the goal is to enhance learning for gifted students, it would be easier to do ability grouping instead.
Which leads me to suspect that this is not the goal...
Friday, August 20, 2010
10 Ways to Embrace the Evening Hours
(cross-posted at My168Hours.com)
My kids are night owls. While I console myself that needing less sleep is often a sign of giftedness, it's hard on a parent to have a 3-year-old who really will not go to sleep until 10PM (the baby often doesn't go down until 9PM or later, either).
The net result is that we have some long evenings in our house. While there are some perks to this as a working parent -- even working 50 hour weeks I can usually spend 5-6 hours per workday with my kids -- there are also some downsides. What do we do with that time? Dinner and baths certainly don't take 3-4 hours. In summer we can go to the park, but it gets dark here by 8, and in winter it's dark at 4:45PM. New York has many wonderful activities for children on weekends and during the weekdays, but there are not a whole lot of activities for 3- and 1-year-olds that start at, say, 7PM.
So, over the last 3 years, I have slowly been building a list of evening activities that will distract the kids from whining for Dora for at least a little while. Some of them:
1. Borders! Last night we camped out in the kids' section for 45 minutes playing with the plastic dinosaurs. While this is not really a free activity (I usually wind up buying sticker books), a library with evening hours would serve the same purpose.
2. The grocery store. But not necessarily with the purpose of buying groceries. I try to order the workhorse staples of my grocery list online, since the kids get cranky after a short while of shopping, and hauling groceries (I don't have a car) while hauling the kids is tough. So if I go with both kids, we cruise the produce aisle and name things and then buy, like, one bunch of bananas.
3. A run with the double stroller. Lock the front wheel, cruise 1.5 miles to a playground, play briefly (or not, depending on how dark it's getting), run home. A bonus way to get more exercise.
4. Visit the play room or pool. My apartment building has a kids' playroom and an indoor pool, both of which are technically open until 9:45PM on weeknights. Yes, people think you're crazy when they see your small children up at 8PM, but so it goes.
5. Museums with evening hours. I have to plan ahead for this, as often they close by 6PM. But some stay open late one night per week.
6. Evening playdates. This hasn't worked out quite as often as I would have liked (since other people's children seem not to keep my kids' hours) but is a great option if you can pull it off.
7. Invite people who don't have kids over for dinner. This has several benefits. First, you get to see them without the whole babysitter song and dance. Second, the kids enjoy hanging out with other adults who may be a bit less burned out than the parents. Order take-out so no one has to cook.
8. Backyard "camping." OK, living in the heart of New York City, this one isn't an option for me, but I look forward to someday doing evening campfires and s'mores, even if the fire is inside the grill on the patio.
9. Really easy arts and crafts. You know the Crate & Barrel and Harry & David catalogs that show up, oh, every other day? Make collages.
10. Random sporting events. Jasper and I have been known to go take in a kickball game in Central Park. Interesting to watch for a bit, but if you don't really care about the team or the sport, than you won't mind leaving in the middle (key with kids).
Of course, many of these things require at least a bit of planning. As I've been pondering how I spend my hours, I realize that I don't plan for the evenings as often as I should. I'm tired after working all day, and I'm tempted to play it safe, staying home rather than risking a subway diaper explosion or a meltdown. But given how long our evenings can be, staying home the whole time without something on the agenda is a recipe for frayed nerves, or for constant begging to play "stegasaurus," which involves crawling around on the floor and hurts my knees. Or for a Dora the Explorer marathon. And while Dora is fine for half an hour, 3-4 hours is a bit much.
I'd really welcome other suggestions on things to do during the evening hours with kids who don't sleep.
My kids are night owls. While I console myself that needing less sleep is often a sign of giftedness, it's hard on a parent to have a 3-year-old who really will not go to sleep until 10PM (the baby often doesn't go down until 9PM or later, either).
The net result is that we have some long evenings in our house. While there are some perks to this as a working parent -- even working 50 hour weeks I can usually spend 5-6 hours per workday with my kids -- there are also some downsides. What do we do with that time? Dinner and baths certainly don't take 3-4 hours. In summer we can go to the park, but it gets dark here by 8, and in winter it's dark at 4:45PM. New York has many wonderful activities for children on weekends and during the weekdays, but there are not a whole lot of activities for 3- and 1-year-olds that start at, say, 7PM.
So, over the last 3 years, I have slowly been building a list of evening activities that will distract the kids from whining for Dora for at least a little while. Some of them:
1. Borders! Last night we camped out in the kids' section for 45 minutes playing with the plastic dinosaurs. While this is not really a free activity (I usually wind up buying sticker books), a library with evening hours would serve the same purpose.
2. The grocery store. But not necessarily with the purpose of buying groceries. I try to order the workhorse staples of my grocery list online, since the kids get cranky after a short while of shopping, and hauling groceries (I don't have a car) while hauling the kids is tough. So if I go with both kids, we cruise the produce aisle and name things and then buy, like, one bunch of bananas.
3. A run with the double stroller. Lock the front wheel, cruise 1.5 miles to a playground, play briefly (or not, depending on how dark it's getting), run home. A bonus way to get more exercise.
4. Visit the play room or pool. My apartment building has a kids' playroom and an indoor pool, both of which are technically open until 9:45PM on weeknights. Yes, people think you're crazy when they see your small children up at 8PM, but so it goes.
5. Museums with evening hours. I have to plan ahead for this, as often they close by 6PM. But some stay open late one night per week.
6. Evening playdates. This hasn't worked out quite as often as I would have liked (since other people's children seem not to keep my kids' hours) but is a great option if you can pull it off.
7. Invite people who don't have kids over for dinner. This has several benefits. First, you get to see them without the whole babysitter song and dance. Second, the kids enjoy hanging out with other adults who may be a bit less burned out than the parents. Order take-out so no one has to cook.
8. Backyard "camping." OK, living in the heart of New York City, this one isn't an option for me, but I look forward to someday doing evening campfires and s'mores, even if the fire is inside the grill on the patio.
9. Really easy arts and crafts. You know the Crate & Barrel and Harry & David catalogs that show up, oh, every other day? Make collages.
10. Random sporting events. Jasper and I have been known to go take in a kickball game in Central Park. Interesting to watch for a bit, but if you don't really care about the team or the sport, than you won't mind leaving in the middle (key with kids).
Of course, many of these things require at least a bit of planning. As I've been pondering how I spend my hours, I realize that I don't plan for the evenings as often as I should. I'm tired after working all day, and I'm tempted to play it safe, staying home rather than risking a subway diaper explosion or a meltdown. But given how long our evenings can be, staying home the whole time without something on the agenda is a recipe for frayed nerves, or for constant begging to play "stegasaurus," which involves crawling around on the floor and hurts my knees. Or for a Dora the Explorer marathon. And while Dora is fine for half an hour, 3-4 hours is a bit much.
I'd really welcome other suggestions on things to do during the evening hours with kids who don't sleep.
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Multipotentiality
I hope I haven't yet reached the limit of how many times I can link to Tamara Fisher's Unwrapping the Gifted blog over at EdWeek, but I really enjoyed her recent post on Multipotentiality.
Blogger's software doesn't recognize that as a real word, but it's a real phenomenon. Just try asking many gifted kids what they want to be when they grow up and you'll get an earful. As Fisher quotes a list from Maggie, a 6th grader: "famous singer, veterinarian, marine biologist, material scientist, archeologist, doctor, nurse, dancer, artist, Navy Seal, charity founder, fashion designer, spy, professional horse rider, dog agility trainer and competitor, firefighter, EMT, animal shelter owner, magician, professional photographer, TV star, cop, INVENTOR, professional instrumental musician, weather woman, chemist, engineer, physical therapist, game designer."
Phew!
Of course, the problem is that while some of these could certainly happen together in a lifetime (plenty of fashion designers found charities, and some these days moonlight as TV stars as well), being a doctor and an archeologist both require many years of specific training. Since gifted children have a tendency to think about the future, this can introduce plenty of stress, particularly as they hit college and need to start actually specializing. Fisher quotes Jane, a young woman, as saying "It seems almost impossible to pick just "one" [subject] and as a result I am looking into possibly getting multiple degrees so that if I get bored with one career I can move on to another." This is an option, though my husband (who works at a consulting company) can tell plenty of tales of people who've gotten PhDs and medical degrees and MBAs, and finally wind up working with him, which they could have done with any one of those degrees. About a decade earlier. As a net result, they're a decade behind the hierarchy of people who made up their minds. That state of affairs also doesn't sit well with many gifted folks.
There is no good solution to this, though I can tell you mine. One big reason I chose writing as a career is that I get to study many subjects briefly. I have stubbornly resisted specializing (this month I wrote about the anti-lawn movement, people who create jobs, the Ramona books, and a forthcoming piece on Korean green grocers, among other topics). 168 Hours profiles everyone from scientists to novelists, with a mix of economics and sociology thrown in. As a result, I rarely get bored.
But part of growing up is realizing that not all doors will be permanently open. Eventually, you'll need to pick a career (even if you won't stay in it forever). Perhaps one of the best ways we can help gifted children is help them sample different careers that sound appealing, figure out ways that certain careers can combine other interests, and help them figure out ways to have other loves become hobbies. I'm curious what other parents have done or observed with their children.
Blogger's software doesn't recognize that as a real word, but it's a real phenomenon. Just try asking many gifted kids what they want to be when they grow up and you'll get an earful. As Fisher quotes a list from Maggie, a 6th grader: "famous singer, veterinarian, marine biologist, material scientist, archeologist, doctor, nurse, dancer, artist, Navy Seal, charity founder, fashion designer, spy, professional horse rider, dog agility trainer and competitor, firefighter, EMT, animal shelter owner, magician, professional photographer, TV star, cop, INVENTOR, professional instrumental musician, weather woman, chemist, engineer, physical therapist, game designer."
Phew!
Of course, the problem is that while some of these could certainly happen together in a lifetime (plenty of fashion designers found charities, and some these days moonlight as TV stars as well), being a doctor and an archeologist both require many years of specific training. Since gifted children have a tendency to think about the future, this can introduce plenty of stress, particularly as they hit college and need to start actually specializing. Fisher quotes Jane, a young woman, as saying "It seems almost impossible to pick just "one" [subject] and as a result I am looking into possibly getting multiple degrees so that if I get bored with one career I can move on to another." This is an option, though my husband (who works at a consulting company) can tell plenty of tales of people who've gotten PhDs and medical degrees and MBAs, and finally wind up working with him, which they could have done with any one of those degrees. About a decade earlier. As a net result, they're a decade behind the hierarchy of people who made up their minds. That state of affairs also doesn't sit well with many gifted folks.
There is no good solution to this, though I can tell you mine. One big reason I chose writing as a career is that I get to study many subjects briefly. I have stubbornly resisted specializing (this month I wrote about the anti-lawn movement, people who create jobs, the Ramona books, and a forthcoming piece on Korean green grocers, among other topics). 168 Hours profiles everyone from scientists to novelists, with a mix of economics and sociology thrown in. As a result, I rarely get bored.
But part of growing up is realizing that not all doors will be permanently open. Eventually, you'll need to pick a career (even if you won't stay in it forever). Perhaps one of the best ways we can help gifted children is help them sample different careers that sound appealing, figure out ways that certain careers can combine other interests, and help them figure out ways to have other loves become hobbies. I'm curious what other parents have done or observed with their children.
Thursday, August 12, 2010
The 2010 Davidson Fellows
I am on vacation this week at the beach, but wanted to make sure Gifted Exchange readers got to see the list of the 2010 Davidson Fellows. You can read the list here.
What might be particularly interesting to people is that this is the 10-year anniversary of the fellowship program, and the Davidson Institute asked former fellows to report back about what they were up to. The answer? Most are still in school -- which makes sense for people who won when they were 14-18 years old. You can read their stories here. A few have, however, entered the working world (check out Anders Kaseorg, who co-founded a company called K-Splice, and won an MIT entrepreneur-of-the-year award). I expect this will become a very interesting feature in the years to come.
What might be particularly interesting to people is that this is the 10-year anniversary of the fellowship program, and the Davidson Institute asked former fellows to report back about what they were up to. The answer? Most are still in school -- which makes sense for people who won when they were 14-18 years old. You can read their stories here. A few have, however, entered the working world (check out Anders Kaseorg, who co-founded a company called K-Splice, and won an MIT entrepreneur-of-the-year award). I expect this will become a very interesting feature in the years to come.
Tuesday, August 03, 2010
Take a test, skip a grade?
It seems like a fairly straightforward proposition: each grade represents a certain quantity of knowledge. If you already have mastered that knowledge, shouldn't you be able to show this on a test, and then move on to the next level? In other words, take a test, skip a grade?
Yet very few school districts offer that option. As I learned in the exchange with the Montgomery, MD schools, even some gifted programs seem to be structured around the belief that it is far better to receive in-grade enrichment than to skip a grade. Which is why I was quite interested to see this little notice about the Taylor Independent School District in Texas. According to the Taylor Daily Press:
How straightforward! I like the idea of an "acceleration exam." I know there is already an Iowa Acceleration Scale; a standardized acceleration exam in any state would make the whole process much easier. And hopefully, more common.
Yet very few school districts offer that option. As I learned in the exchange with the Montgomery, MD schools, even some gifted programs seem to be structured around the belief that it is far better to receive in-grade enrichment than to skip a grade. Which is why I was quite interested to see this little notice about the Taylor Independent School District in Texas. According to the Taylor Daily Press:
Taylor ISD will offer examinations for acceleration in grades Kindergarten through twelfth grade on Aug. 18, 19 and 20.
Students must score at least a 90 on such a test to be advanced to a grade level in grades first through fifth or to receive credit in grades sixth through twelfth. Criteria for Kindergarten acceleration may be obtained from the Naomi Pasemann Elementary principal. No fee is required for the examination. Any students who wish to take an examination for acceleration must register with the principal of their school no later than Aug. 9.
How straightforward! I like the idea of an "acceleration exam." I know there is already an Iowa Acceleration Scale; a standardized acceleration exam in any state would make the whole process much easier. And hopefully, more common.
Sunday, July 25, 2010
Time: The Case Against Summer Vacation?
(cross-posted at My168hours.com)
This week's Time magazine cover story deals with a thorny issue: summer vacation. Why is it thorny? Because most of us romanticize it, and yet it does serious academic damage to people who can least afford it.
We all have grand summer memories. Certainly by middle school, this was my favorite time of year, a nearly 3-month break from a plodding school routine. Before I was old enough for a full-time job, I did summer theater and went to academic camps at Northwestern, both of which were far more stimulating than most things that happened during the academic year. (Now, my two full-time summer jobs at age 17 and 18, working at Fazoli's Italian Restaurant, and Osco Drugs, were a different story, but all nostalgia requires a bit of finessing).
We all like to picture Tom Sawyer-esque romps, but viewed more critically, there are many problems with this break now that most of us are no longer farmers. For starters, it leaves working parents scrambling for childcare. I've been amazed how many work-from-home parents seem to be trying to stumble through it, with Facebook posts complaining about the situation. School is not supposed to be childcare, but that is the reality for many people, and most jobs don't only run September-June.
More importantly, though, there's reasonable evidence that taking 2-3 months off from school really harms vulnerable students. This makes perfect sense; artists and musicians need daily practice to stay on top of their game, and students do too. While my summers featured plenty of reading and enrichment opportunities which could be deemed academic "practice" (again, until the Fazoli's/Osco's fun), many kids wind up in what is charmingly referred to as "self-care." That is, they are home alone while their parent or parents work, with watching TV considered the least bad of all possible options. This is not doing anyone any favors.
I thought the Time article made a good case that the solution is not merely to extend the school year (since much of what happens in American schools is sclerotic and ineffective anyway). The solution is to make a better net of summer camps and programs that make learning fun. Frankly, this should happen during the whole school year, but we have to play the cards we are dealt. The link, above, gives an intro to the piece, and the article in the print magazine highlights several great programs from Indianapolis to Corbin, KY where programs provide as much as 10 weeks of 10-hour days which sound like a lot of fun. Think arithmetic and fishing, balancing each other out. Or a fire-fighting themed camp.
For readers here, what are you doing with your kids during summer break? Is it a scramble, or do you have something you always do?
This week's Time magazine cover story deals with a thorny issue: summer vacation. Why is it thorny? Because most of us romanticize it, and yet it does serious academic damage to people who can least afford it.
We all have grand summer memories. Certainly by middle school, this was my favorite time of year, a nearly 3-month break from a plodding school routine. Before I was old enough for a full-time job, I did summer theater and went to academic camps at Northwestern, both of which were far more stimulating than most things that happened during the academic year. (Now, my two full-time summer jobs at age 17 and 18, working at Fazoli's Italian Restaurant, and Osco Drugs, were a different story, but all nostalgia requires a bit of finessing).
We all like to picture Tom Sawyer-esque romps, but viewed more critically, there are many problems with this break now that most of us are no longer farmers. For starters, it leaves working parents scrambling for childcare. I've been amazed how many work-from-home parents seem to be trying to stumble through it, with Facebook posts complaining about the situation. School is not supposed to be childcare, but that is the reality for many people, and most jobs don't only run September-June.
More importantly, though, there's reasonable evidence that taking 2-3 months off from school really harms vulnerable students. This makes perfect sense; artists and musicians need daily practice to stay on top of their game, and students do too. While my summers featured plenty of reading and enrichment opportunities which could be deemed academic "practice" (again, until the Fazoli's/Osco's fun), many kids wind up in what is charmingly referred to as "self-care." That is, they are home alone while their parent or parents work, with watching TV considered the least bad of all possible options. This is not doing anyone any favors.
I thought the Time article made a good case that the solution is not merely to extend the school year (since much of what happens in American schools is sclerotic and ineffective anyway). The solution is to make a better net of summer camps and programs that make learning fun. Frankly, this should happen during the whole school year, but we have to play the cards we are dealt. The link, above, gives an intro to the piece, and the article in the print magazine highlights several great programs from Indianapolis to Corbin, KY where programs provide as much as 10 weeks of 10-hour days which sound like a lot of fun. Think arithmetic and fishing, balancing each other out. Or a fire-fighting themed camp.
For readers here, what are you doing with your kids during summer break? Is it a scramble, or do you have something you always do?
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Mathematics and Lockhart's Lament
Presumably some of you have already read this, but my mother and little brother forwarded me an interesting essay by Paul Lockhart, a math teacher, which was written in 2002. You can read a PDF of the essay here. (It's 25 pages long - so I'll forgive you for skimming it instead...). Called "A Mathematician's Lament," the essay makes the case that the way math is taught is usually boring and irrelevant, turning children off to the beauty of mathematics. Or to use his words:
"If I had to design a mechanism for the express purpose of destroying a child's natural curiosity and love of pattern-making, I couldn't possibly do as good a job as is currently being done -- I simply wouldn't have the imagination to come up with the kind of senseless, soul-crushing ideas that constitute contemporary mathematics education."
He writes that instead of learning formulas, students should play games, play around with shapes, pose their own word problems based on questions that are actually interesting in real life, etc.
It's an interesting read, though I'm of mixed mind about it. I took a geometry class during the summer after 7th grade that used this conjecture method, and while it was fine, I can't say that it made me enjoy math more than the traditional geometry class I took the next year. I also think that creativity and discipline have to be closely linked. One of the most frustrating things, looking back on my own writing education, is how often teachers just encouraged me to be creative. It turns out that there are actually rules of grammar and best practices of argument and story plotting and other such things which can be enormously helpful in getting your point across!
But anyway, I'm quite curious what Gifted Exchange readers think -- does the usual method of math instruction kill all the joy of the subject?
"If I had to design a mechanism for the express purpose of destroying a child's natural curiosity and love of pattern-making, I couldn't possibly do as good a job as is currently being done -- I simply wouldn't have the imagination to come up with the kind of senseless, soul-crushing ideas that constitute contemporary mathematics education."
He writes that instead of learning formulas, students should play games, play around with shapes, pose their own word problems based on questions that are actually interesting in real life, etc.
It's an interesting read, though I'm of mixed mind about it. I took a geometry class during the summer after 7th grade that used this conjecture method, and while it was fine, I can't say that it made me enjoy math more than the traditional geometry class I took the next year. I also think that creativity and discipline have to be closely linked. One of the most frustrating things, looking back on my own writing education, is how often teachers just encouraged me to be creative. It turns out that there are actually rules of grammar and best practices of argument and story plotting and other such things which can be enormously helpful in getting your point across!
But anyway, I'm quite curious what Gifted Exchange readers think -- does the usual method of math instruction kill all the joy of the subject?
Monday, July 12, 2010
USA Today: Some Schools Grouping Students by Skill, Not Grade Level
Here's a silver lining if I ever saw one. Kansas City, MO, is having to make such deep cuts and changes as part of its reorganization that the school district is willing to try something a little radical: ending the widespread educational obsession with grades. According to an article called "Some schools grouping students by skill, not grade level" in USA Today, the plan calls for students to move forward based on mastering certain skills, not based on 9-year-olds generally being in 4th grade. If you get through the K-12 material in less than 13 years, great. You can start on college. And as KC Superintendent John Covington told USA Today, "This system precludes us from labeling children failures...It's not that you've failed, it's just that at this point you haven't mastered the competencies yet and when you do, you will move to the next level."
In other words, readiness grouping!
As readers of this blog know, the age-grade lockstep is one of the most pernicious ideas in education. Though mounds of research (see A Nation Deceived) has determined that grade skipping is perfectly fine for most advanced kids, schools hate to do it. But organizing children by age for academics doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Kids learn at vastly different paces. Better to have a certain body of knowledge and learning methods that we want educated citizens to know, then let kids take what time they need. Maybe it's 6 years. Maybe it's 15.
I know there are logistical issues with this, but I wish the Kansas City schools the best of luck in this endeavor, and I applaud them for being willing to try something new. Hopefully, when kids are able to learn at a challenging but doable pace, they'll be more excited about learning generally.
In other words, readiness grouping!
As readers of this blog know, the age-grade lockstep is one of the most pernicious ideas in education. Though mounds of research (see A Nation Deceived) has determined that grade skipping is perfectly fine for most advanced kids, schools hate to do it. But organizing children by age for academics doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Kids learn at vastly different paces. Better to have a certain body of knowledge and learning methods that we want educated citizens to know, then let kids take what time they need. Maybe it's 6 years. Maybe it's 15.
I know there are logistical issues with this, but I wish the Kansas City schools the best of luck in this endeavor, and I applaud them for being willing to try something new. Hopefully, when kids are able to learn at a challenging but doable pace, they'll be more excited about learning generally.
Wednesday, July 07, 2010
The Disease-IQ Link
We know that infectious disease inflicts many burdens on developing countries -- high infant mortality rates, for instance, and shortened lifespans. But new research highlighted in the Economist this past week indicates that perhaps too many pathogens can result in lower intelligence among the populace, too. You can read the article here.
While controversial, here is the explanation. In young children, a developing brain demands the majority of a body's metabolic energy. Any competition for this energy will result in less energy for the brain at a crucial juncture. Infectious diseases require quite a bit of energy to fight (or result in diarrhea, which prevents the body from absorbing nutrients which would feed the brain). Some practical evidence seems to support this; many children who manage to recover from cerebral malaria suffer cognitive disabilities afterward.
Of course, one has to be careful with all this. For some time, "experts" cautioned that teen girls shouldn't be educated because tending their brains would divert energy from their developing reproductive systems -- a sort of reverse of this hypothesis. But it does appear that the countries with the highest measured average intelligences (like Singapore and South Korea) have the lowest disease burdens. And, of course, this explanation does offer hope for future development. If you eradicate disease, you get a human capital boost apart from the fact that people will be healthier. They may be smarter too.
And as readers of this blog know, intelligence matters. A 150 IQ kid whose intelligence is lost due to disease is an asset a developing country will sorely miss.
While controversial, here is the explanation. In young children, a developing brain demands the majority of a body's metabolic energy. Any competition for this energy will result in less energy for the brain at a crucial juncture. Infectious diseases require quite a bit of energy to fight (or result in diarrhea, which prevents the body from absorbing nutrients which would feed the brain). Some practical evidence seems to support this; many children who manage to recover from cerebral malaria suffer cognitive disabilities afterward.
Of course, one has to be careful with all this. For some time, "experts" cautioned that teen girls shouldn't be educated because tending their brains would divert energy from their developing reproductive systems -- a sort of reverse of this hypothesis. But it does appear that the countries with the highest measured average intelligences (like Singapore and South Korea) have the lowest disease burdens. And, of course, this explanation does offer hope for future development. If you eradicate disease, you get a human capital boost apart from the fact that people will be healthier. They may be smarter too.
And as readers of this blog know, intelligence matters. A 150 IQ kid whose intelligence is lost due to disease is an asset a developing country will sorely miss.
Friday, July 02, 2010
My interview with My Gifted Girl
If you're not already a fan of My Gifted Girl on Facebook, I suggest you become one! This community looks at nurturing the gifts of girls and women of all ages. And, as a side benefit, is currently running a Q&A with me about 168 Hours, and gifted girls/women generally. Here's a taste of the interview:
Q:What advice do you have for gifted young women who are just beginning careers?
A: Many gifted young women flounder as they transition from college to career because work is not like school – and gifted girls are often good at school! In school, if you do a project according to the teacher’s specifications, you’ll get an A. If you finish all your assignments and pass your tests, you’ll move to the next grade. The real world isn’t like that. You can definitely move backwards. You can do everything exactly right, and still lose your job because your company is in the middle of a slump. There are no right answers in the back of the textbook. Sometimes, no one even knows which questions are important! You have to be comfortable with a lot more uncertainty. But once you embrace that uncertainty – and realize that most people don’t have any better clue what’s going on than you do – you can soar.
Q: What are your thoughts about how impostor syndrome can impact our time?
A: When you lack confidence in your abilities, it’s easy to waste time on things that you think may “prove” to the world (or yourself) that you deserve space on this planet. This leads to the SuperMom problem. If you’ve decided to take time out of the workforce to raise children, you may spend a lot of time showing people that you’re still a high achiever by volunteering for school projects only a martyr would take on or enrolling your kids in every activity available. If you’re working, you may try to over-deliver on the job on things that don’t matter (writing a dissertation when your boss wanted a memo) or constructing hand-made Valentines for everyone in your second grader’s class (to show that you’re still a good mom).
In general, you should spend most of your time on three things: nurturing your career (which includes keeping a hand in your profession if you’ve stepped back for a bit), nurturing your family, and nurturing yourself. If something doesn’t fit into these categories – for instance, a volunteer project you’re not passionate about – then it’s probably not a good use of your time. Somebody else can do it better. It will take your attention away from the things you do best. Unfortunately, imposter syndrome has us doing a lot of things that aren’t good uses of our time.
Q:What advice do you have for gifted young women who are just beginning careers?
A: Many gifted young women flounder as they transition from college to career because work is not like school – and gifted girls are often good at school! In school, if you do a project according to the teacher’s specifications, you’ll get an A. If you finish all your assignments and pass your tests, you’ll move to the next grade. The real world isn’t like that. You can definitely move backwards. You can do everything exactly right, and still lose your job because your company is in the middle of a slump. There are no right answers in the back of the textbook. Sometimes, no one even knows which questions are important! You have to be comfortable with a lot more uncertainty. But once you embrace that uncertainty – and realize that most people don’t have any better clue what’s going on than you do – you can soar.
Q: What are your thoughts about how impostor syndrome can impact our time?
A: When you lack confidence in your abilities, it’s easy to waste time on things that you think may “prove” to the world (or yourself) that you deserve space on this planet. This leads to the SuperMom problem. If you’ve decided to take time out of the workforce to raise children, you may spend a lot of time showing people that you’re still a high achiever by volunteering for school projects only a martyr would take on or enrolling your kids in every activity available. If you’re working, you may try to over-deliver on the job on things that don’t matter (writing a dissertation when your boss wanted a memo) or constructing hand-made Valentines for everyone in your second grader’s class (to show that you’re still a good mom).
In general, you should spend most of your time on three things: nurturing your career (which includes keeping a hand in your profession if you’ve stepped back for a bit), nurturing your family, and nurturing yourself. If something doesn’t fit into these categories – for instance, a volunteer project you’re not passionate about – then it’s probably not a good use of your time. Somebody else can do it better. It will take your attention away from the things you do best. Unfortunately, imposter syndrome has us doing a lot of things that aren’t good uses of our time.
Thursday, June 24, 2010
How do you talk about your gifted kid?
Parents like to talk about their kids. Sometimes (when we are around friends without kids, for instance) we realize that we barely talk about anything else! And part of being a parent is being proud of your kid and wanting to share good news, and share concerns as well.
If you've got highly gifted offspring, though, this can be a problem.
I was thinking of this while reading the "Unwrapping the Gifted" blog over at EdWeek. Tamara Fisher describes a parent weekend in Montana, and the awkwardness of discussing your kid in mixed company, as it were:
"Parenting a gifted child is not usually the cakewalk others assume it to be," she writes. "These kids are intense, they crave (and seek out) challenge and mental stimulation, and their learning needs are typically not well-met by a regular classroom pace and content. These factors can lead to parenting struggles that a parent's friends just don't understand. It's not easy to say, 'My child is four grade levels ahead in his reading abilities and I'm worried he's not getting what he needs in the classroom' when the societal response to that worry is cynicism and sarcasm."
It is also very hard to talk in public about your kid's accomplishments. As the Davidsons and I wrote in Genius Denied, "Bragging about one's child is a birthright of being a parent -- when she took her first step, said her first word, learned how to read. But friendly bragging in the neighborhood and at work involves a quid pro quo. You talk about your kid for a bit, then I'll talk about mine. If you can't talk about the same thing, the bragging stops. Parents who are proud of an A on a test resent hearing about another kid who has just skipped three grades, published an academic paper, and still complains that the work is too easy."
As one parent told us about her daughter, "I feel like it is seen as inappropriate for me to say too much 'good' about her. I worry about this because I want her to hear me say good things about her, but it is so uncomfortable."
So here's the question: how do you talk about your gifted child? How do you participate in those friendly parenting conversations at work or at the park? Or do you just keep quiet and save most of the conversation for parenting gatherings where everyone is dealing with similar issues? I'd love to hear how Gifted Exchange readers handled these situations.
If you've got highly gifted offspring, though, this can be a problem.
I was thinking of this while reading the "Unwrapping the Gifted" blog over at EdWeek. Tamara Fisher describes a parent weekend in Montana, and the awkwardness of discussing your kid in mixed company, as it were:
"Parenting a gifted child is not usually the cakewalk others assume it to be," she writes. "These kids are intense, they crave (and seek out) challenge and mental stimulation, and their learning needs are typically not well-met by a regular classroom pace and content. These factors can lead to parenting struggles that a parent's friends just don't understand. It's not easy to say, 'My child is four grade levels ahead in his reading abilities and I'm worried he's not getting what he needs in the classroom' when the societal response to that worry is cynicism and sarcasm."
It is also very hard to talk in public about your kid's accomplishments. As the Davidsons and I wrote in Genius Denied, "Bragging about one's child is a birthright of being a parent -- when she took her first step, said her first word, learned how to read. But friendly bragging in the neighborhood and at work involves a quid pro quo. You talk about your kid for a bit, then I'll talk about mine. If you can't talk about the same thing, the bragging stops. Parents who are proud of an A on a test resent hearing about another kid who has just skipped three grades, published an academic paper, and still complains that the work is too easy."
As one parent told us about her daughter, "I feel like it is seen as inappropriate for me to say too much 'good' about her. I worry about this because I want her to hear me say good things about her, but it is so uncomfortable."
So here's the question: how do you talk about your gifted child? How do you participate in those friendly parenting conversations at work or at the park? Or do you just keep quiet and save most of the conversation for parenting gatherings where everyone is dealing with similar issues? I'd love to hear how Gifted Exchange readers handled these situations.
Monday, June 21, 2010
Itinerant teachers: expanding access or scaling back?
The Davidson Institute graciously sends me a round-up of gifted headlines from around the world every week. This past week, two articles caught my eye because they seem to show an interesting trend in gifted programs. This trend is to do away with a full-time stand-alone gifted classroom, and to substitute a roving teacher.
This is largely budget neutral. Kids still have to be transported, whether to a gifted classroom/school or another school. Teachers still have to be paid whatever the wage is for their tenure and expertise, whether they are in one classroom 5 days a week, or in one 3 days a week and roving for two, or roving for the whole time. But both a Johnson County, NC school district, and a district in British Columbia, have elected to do this sort switch in order to, as an NC official said, be "using these teachers better, more efficiently." A roving teacher can bring gifted services to more students.
It is hard to know what to think about this. If a district has 100 gifted students, but only 20 are in a stand alone classroom available at one school, then this doesn't seem like a good set-up. On the other hand, serving 100 students 1 day a week is not equivalent to serving 20 students 5 days a week. Ideally, there would be full-time services for all 100 kids. That could also be budget neutral, as long as the class size for gifted students is no smaller than for other classes. But for a variety of reasons, this full-scale readiness grouping does not seem to happen many places (possibly because of the attitudes discussed in our previous post on the "stupid class").
I'm curious about Gifted Exchange readers' experiences with roving teachers. Is it better than nothing? Quite good? Or not really worth it? Is it a stealth way to get rid of gifted education?
This is largely budget neutral. Kids still have to be transported, whether to a gifted classroom/school or another school. Teachers still have to be paid whatever the wage is for their tenure and expertise, whether they are in one classroom 5 days a week, or in one 3 days a week and roving for two, or roving for the whole time. But both a Johnson County, NC school district, and a district in British Columbia, have elected to do this sort switch in order to, as an NC official said, be "using these teachers better, more efficiently." A roving teacher can bring gifted services to more students.
It is hard to know what to think about this. If a district has 100 gifted students, but only 20 are in a stand alone classroom available at one school, then this doesn't seem like a good set-up. On the other hand, serving 100 students 1 day a week is not equivalent to serving 20 students 5 days a week. Ideally, there would be full-time services for all 100 kids. That could also be budget neutral, as long as the class size for gifted students is no smaller than for other classes. But for a variety of reasons, this full-scale readiness grouping does not seem to happen many places (possibly because of the attitudes discussed in our previous post on the "stupid class").
I'm curious about Gifted Exchange readers' experiences with roving teachers. Is it better than nothing? Quite good? Or not really worth it? Is it a stealth way to get rid of gifted education?
Monday, June 14, 2010
The End of the "Stupid Class"
Sometimes it's good to be reminded that not everyone views the world the way I do. I am saying that, because that is the only positive point I see coming out of the tone of a story called The End Of The Stupid Class, which ran at Voice of San Diego recently.
The piece documents a detracking effort by Correia Middle School in Point Loma, CA. The author, Emily Alpert, starts from the assumption that this is a good thing because ability grouping (or as I like to call it, readiness grouping) "tends to help kids at the top and hurt those at the bottom." (That's the summary of the article in "The Big Picture" section on the left side of the page). So clearly, we wouldn't want to help kids at the top. And she quotes kids talking about things slowing down, and mentions that fewer kids are scoring in the top levels on the 7th grade math exams. But she quickly rushes past that and quotes other people talking about how gifted kids thought there should only be white kids in their classes and hence now this is better.
In other words, anyone who believes in readiness grouping is racist. Get it?
After your head stops spinning when you read the article, it's time to take a more sober look at the concept. In general, detracking is very hard to make work. If you have a school of extremely gifted teachers (that is, you've managed to ability group to get your staff to all be much better than average), sometimes it can go all right. But if you have a school of extremely gifted teachers, anything you do will be fine. In general, teachers have an easier time of instructing kids who are relatively close in terms of their preparation.
I don't want to completely smack Correia, as it sounds like there is still some tracking for extremely gifted learners, as well as students with special needs. In general, it's better to have a smaller, more targeted gifted program than a huge one that ropes in students who just happen to score in the top 25%. And if students were ever calling classes the "stupid class" then it sounds like many of the folks involved in the school needed an attitude adjustment. But the way this article is written just totally misses the point. Gifted education is not a reward for white children and a way of punishing kids by putting them in the "stupid class." It's an educational intervention for children who need it. Maybe if we keep saying that often enough, the message will get through.
The piece documents a detracking effort by Correia Middle School in Point Loma, CA. The author, Emily Alpert, starts from the assumption that this is a good thing because ability grouping (or as I like to call it, readiness grouping) "tends to help kids at the top and hurt those at the bottom." (That's the summary of the article in "The Big Picture" section on the left side of the page). So clearly, we wouldn't want to help kids at the top. And she quotes kids talking about things slowing down, and mentions that fewer kids are scoring in the top levels on the 7th grade math exams. But she quickly rushes past that and quotes other people talking about how gifted kids thought there should only be white kids in their classes and hence now this is better.
In other words, anyone who believes in readiness grouping is racist. Get it?
After your head stops spinning when you read the article, it's time to take a more sober look at the concept. In general, detracking is very hard to make work. If you have a school of extremely gifted teachers (that is, you've managed to ability group to get your staff to all be much better than average), sometimes it can go all right. But if you have a school of extremely gifted teachers, anything you do will be fine. In general, teachers have an easier time of instructing kids who are relatively close in terms of their preparation.
I don't want to completely smack Correia, as it sounds like there is still some tracking for extremely gifted learners, as well as students with special needs. In general, it's better to have a smaller, more targeted gifted program than a huge one that ropes in students who just happen to score in the top 25%. And if students were ever calling classes the "stupid class" then it sounds like many of the folks involved in the school needed an attitude adjustment. But the way this article is written just totally misses the point. Gifted education is not a reward for white children and a way of punishing kids by putting them in the "stupid class." It's an educational intervention for children who need it. Maybe if we keep saying that often enough, the message will get through.
Thursday, June 10, 2010
The 2016 hours of summer
(cross-posted at My168hours.com; this fits in the "parenting" category for Gifted Exchange).
There are 168 hours in a week. Many kids have roughly 12 weeks off from school for June, July and August. This raises the question for families: what are you doing with these 2016 hours (168 x 12) of summer?
Sure, you'll be sleeping some. Grown-ups will sleep about 672 of them. Kids a bit more. And many adults also have far less than 12 weeks off work. But even if you're working 40 hours during each of those 12 weeks -- 480 hours -- that still leaves 864 waking, non-working summer hours. If you take a week or two off work (most people have a few days off around July 4th anyway) that puts you up over 900.
This is a lot of time, even if you already have commitments like camps or sports practices. Do you know how you'll spend these 900 hours?
We have been trying to figure this out in my house. Sure, there are bigger things: a weekend trip to the beach, a few days visiting grandparents, a week's beach vacation in August. But many of those 900 summer hours come in shorter spurts. They come as a lazy weekend day, or a gorgeous summer evening where it stays light up until bedtime.
In my book, 168 Hours, I reference an exercise created by career coach Caroline Ceniza-Levine, called the "List of 100 Dreams." This is an unedited list of anything you might like to do or have in life. It's a good way to start thinking about how you'd like to fill your time, because time management isn't just about saving 5 minutes here and there. It's about filling your weeks with activities that bring you and your loved ones joy.
I've been thinking these last few days that it would be a good idea for families to create a List of 100 Summer Dreams. Sit down as a family and start thinking through anything you might like to include in your summer. Evening bike rides? Camp-outs in the backyard? S'mores in the backyard? A weekend canoeing trip? A hike in a nearby state park? A family swimming class? Volunteering together? Making a quilt together? Picnic breakfasts?
You can come back to this list multiple times. But as you look through your weeks, keep looking at this list, and looking for places in the 2016 hours of summer where they'd fit. You have time for anything you really want to do. A canoeing trip your kids may remember for years could only take 10 hours or so on a Saturday. I don't believe in scheduling our lives (particularly our summers!) down to the minute. But we live in a distracted world. When we don't plan to do things that take effort, we tend not to do them. And we lose our summer hours to television, web surfing, chores, errands and puttering. Better to start off with the question of what we'd like to be doing as families, and go from there.
There are 168 hours in a week. Many kids have roughly 12 weeks off from school for June, July and August. This raises the question for families: what are you doing with these 2016 hours (168 x 12) of summer?
Sure, you'll be sleeping some. Grown-ups will sleep about 672 of them. Kids a bit more. And many adults also have far less than 12 weeks off work. But even if you're working 40 hours during each of those 12 weeks -- 480 hours -- that still leaves 864 waking, non-working summer hours. If you take a week or two off work (most people have a few days off around July 4th anyway) that puts you up over 900.
This is a lot of time, even if you already have commitments like camps or sports practices. Do you know how you'll spend these 900 hours?
We have been trying to figure this out in my house. Sure, there are bigger things: a weekend trip to the beach, a few days visiting grandparents, a week's beach vacation in August. But many of those 900 summer hours come in shorter spurts. They come as a lazy weekend day, or a gorgeous summer evening where it stays light up until bedtime.
In my book, 168 Hours, I reference an exercise created by career coach Caroline Ceniza-Levine, called the "List of 100 Dreams." This is an unedited list of anything you might like to do or have in life. It's a good way to start thinking about how you'd like to fill your time, because time management isn't just about saving 5 minutes here and there. It's about filling your weeks with activities that bring you and your loved ones joy.
I've been thinking these last few days that it would be a good idea for families to create a List of 100 Summer Dreams. Sit down as a family and start thinking through anything you might like to include in your summer. Evening bike rides? Camp-outs in the backyard? S'mores in the backyard? A weekend canoeing trip? A hike in a nearby state park? A family swimming class? Volunteering together? Making a quilt together? Picnic breakfasts?
You can come back to this list multiple times. But as you look through your weeks, keep looking at this list, and looking for places in the 2016 hours of summer where they'd fit. You have time for anything you really want to do. A canoeing trip your kids may remember for years could only take 10 hours or so on a Saturday. I don't believe in scheduling our lives (particularly our summers!) down to the minute. But we live in a distracted world. When we don't plan to do things that take effort, we tend not to do them. And we lose our summer hours to television, web surfing, chores, errands and puttering. Better to start off with the question of what we'd like to be doing as families, and go from there.
Wednesday, June 02, 2010
Girls Prevail in New York CIty Programs for Gifted
That's the headline on yesterday's article in the New York Times. While the city's schools as a whole are about 51% male, the gifted programs in the early grades are about 55-56% female.
What causes the disparity? Some experts say that little girls are better able to sit still during the exams required for entrance to these programs. Girls may also develop verbal skills at an earlier age, and hence be able to communicate their giftedness to adults better. (I guess we can be grateful, for the cause of gender relations, that experts aren't suggesting that girls are smarter than boys -- a reverse of the way people spun Larry Summers' comments a few years ago).
If these gender differences are true, though, what is to be done about it? I suppose the same things many of us advocate for making gifted programs fair on multiple dimensions (race, class, etc). Use multiple assessments. Allow people to test in (and out!) of gifted programs at many different points. And stop treating gifted education as a reward. If it is seen as an accommodation for kids who need it, and all children are getting an education that matches their needs, then it matters less what the exact percentage of each different group will be.
What causes the disparity? Some experts say that little girls are better able to sit still during the exams required for entrance to these programs. Girls may also develop verbal skills at an earlier age, and hence be able to communicate their giftedness to adults better. (I guess we can be grateful, for the cause of gender relations, that experts aren't suggesting that girls are smarter than boys -- a reverse of the way people spun Larry Summers' comments a few years ago).
If these gender differences are true, though, what is to be done about it? I suppose the same things many of us advocate for making gifted programs fair on multiple dimensions (race, class, etc). Use multiple assessments. Allow people to test in (and out!) of gifted programs at many different points. And stop treating gifted education as a reward. If it is seen as an accommodation for kids who need it, and all children are getting an education that matches their needs, then it matters less what the exact percentage of each different group will be.
Thursday, May 27, 2010
168 Hours, on sale today
Dear Gifted Exchange readers:
This is a big day for me. My new book, 168 Hours: You Have More Time Than You Think, goes on sale today. You can follow the link, above, to various online retailers, and it should be in the business/time management sections of your local Borders or Barnes & Noble as well.
What, you may ask, is 168 hours? It's what you get when you multiply 24 x 7. It's the number of hours in a week.
I think this is a much better way to think about our time than the usual 24 blocks. Is Tuesday or Saturday a "normal" day for you? Considering them both gives a better picture of our time. This book is about how people in general spend their time and how we can all spend it better. In particular, I profile many people who do a lot with the 168 hours we all have each week -- building big careers, raising big families, even getting enough sleep! Drawing upon data from the American Time Use Survey and other research, I make the case that many of the ideas we have of how people spend their time now, and in the past, are wrong. This book is for anyone who wants to get more out of their time and their lives.
An added bonus for Gifted Exchange readers: There is more math in 168 Hours than in any other self-help book you will read, ever. Also, many of the people I profile are scientists. Some might accuse me of repackaging the profiles I've done for Scientific American, but hey - I thought they were interesting people!
Anyway, if you've enjoyed my musings here over the years, you might want to give the book a look. BookPage named it the top lifestyle book for the month, and Library Journal called it "worthwhile."
All right, thanks for reading this self-promotional announcement, and we will be back to gifted topics next week.
This is a big day for me. My new book, 168 Hours: You Have More Time Than You Think, goes on sale today. You can follow the link, above, to various online retailers, and it should be in the business/time management sections of your local Borders or Barnes & Noble as well.
What, you may ask, is 168 hours? It's what you get when you multiply 24 x 7. It's the number of hours in a week.
I think this is a much better way to think about our time than the usual 24 blocks. Is Tuesday or Saturday a "normal" day for you? Considering them both gives a better picture of our time. This book is about how people in general spend their time and how we can all spend it better. In particular, I profile many people who do a lot with the 168 hours we all have each week -- building big careers, raising big families, even getting enough sleep! Drawing upon data from the American Time Use Survey and other research, I make the case that many of the ideas we have of how people spend their time now, and in the past, are wrong. This book is for anyone who wants to get more out of their time and their lives.
An added bonus for Gifted Exchange readers: There is more math in 168 Hours than in any other self-help book you will read, ever. Also, many of the people I profile are scientists. Some might accuse me of repackaging the profiles I've done for Scientific American, but hey - I thought they were interesting people!
Anyway, if you've enjoyed my musings here over the years, you might want to give the book a look. BookPage named it the top lifestyle book for the month, and Library Journal called it "worthwhile."
All right, thanks for reading this self-promotional announcement, and we will be back to gifted topics next week.
Monday, May 24, 2010
Promise Keepers: The MBA Oath
We'll put this post in the category of "broadly related to education."
I recently reviewed a book called The MBA Oath for City Journal. The MBA Oath is a pledge that students at various business schools (most notably, Harvard Business School) have started taking as a way to bring discussions of ethics into people's minds during graduation season.
You can read my review, "Promise Keepers" here. I think it is a rather thoughtful book, with lots of ethical case studies, though I am not sure that I buy the narrative about business needing saving (by students, at that). Let me know what you think! Broadly, ethics is a great topic for students of any level. You can use it to discuss real life issues, but also to introduce students to philosophers and other great writers.
I recently reviewed a book called The MBA Oath for City Journal. The MBA Oath is a pledge that students at various business schools (most notably, Harvard Business School) have started taking as a way to bring discussions of ethics into people's minds during graduation season.
You can read my review, "Promise Keepers" here. I think it is a rather thoughtful book, with lots of ethical case studies, though I am not sure that I buy the narrative about business needing saving (by students, at that). Let me know what you think! Broadly, ethics is a great topic for students of any level. You can use it to discuss real life issues, but also to introduce students to philosophers and other great writers.
Friday, May 21, 2010
Segregation in Gifted Programs?
No, not the issue people normally complain of -- that children in gifted programs are disproportionately Asian or white. In New York City, a different form of segregation, within gifted programs, seems to be taking place.
The New York Times has a long story about the TAG School in East Harlem. One of three city-wide schools for gifted elementary school students, the school is open to kids who score at roughly the 97th percentile or above. It is located in a predominantly Hispanic neighborhood which turns out to be a bit, well, scruffy. The other two city-wide gifted schools are located in much nicer areas. What this has all resulted in is that white parents have chosen to send their gifted young children to the other two schools. And, it seems from the articles, some black and Hispanic parents prefer to send their kids to TAG because they like its demographic make-up better.
In other words, the gifted programs are fairly segregated. Unfortunately, as part of being in a scruffy neighborhood, the TAG school is also not as nice as the other schools. Parents are banding together to do something about that, but the average income in TAG is lower than in the other gifted schools, which makes fundraising more difficult. And since it's located right beside other schools, there is always the issue of gifted kids getting "better" facilities than their neighbors.
It's a tough issue, defying easy answers, and gives an insight into some of the problems school districts still face when trying to serve diverse students. But we can at least be grateful that NYC is trying. Having three schools for gifted students, even if one is not in a great neighborhood, is much better than most cities do!
The New York Times has a long story about the TAG School in East Harlem. One of three city-wide schools for gifted elementary school students, the school is open to kids who score at roughly the 97th percentile or above. It is located in a predominantly Hispanic neighborhood which turns out to be a bit, well, scruffy. The other two city-wide gifted schools are located in much nicer areas. What this has all resulted in is that white parents have chosen to send their gifted young children to the other two schools. And, it seems from the articles, some black and Hispanic parents prefer to send their kids to TAG because they like its demographic make-up better.
In other words, the gifted programs are fairly segregated. Unfortunately, as part of being in a scruffy neighborhood, the TAG school is also not as nice as the other schools. Parents are banding together to do something about that, but the average income in TAG is lower than in the other gifted schools, which makes fundraising more difficult. And since it's located right beside other schools, there is always the issue of gifted kids getting "better" facilities than their neighbors.
It's a tough issue, defying easy answers, and gives an insight into some of the problems school districts still face when trying to serve diverse students. But we can at least be grateful that NYC is trying. Having three schools for gifted students, even if one is not in a great neighborhood, is much better than most cities do!
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Cristo Rey, "Skimming," Test Scores, etc.
Over the past few years, I've written several times about the Cristo Rey network of Catholic schools. Indeed, it's been the gift that keeps on giving as far as this freelance writer is concerned. I'm happy editors keep saying yes, because I think the schools are based on a great premise. In order to create affordable, sustainable private schools, high school kids in essence do a "job share" at companies in cities that have a Cristo Rey school. Four kids share a job, the company pays Cristo Rey for the equivalent of a full-time temp, and the money supports the kids' schooling. They are, in essence, working their way through school. They learn a lot about the adult world, and see what they can do later if they go to college. Most do.
I guess I won't be writing about these schools for the Wall Street Journal, since Daniel Henninger's Wonderland column today already covers them ("How About a Good Catholic Story?")
But I wanted to bring up some interesting points here, which I think have implications for education more broadly. Some folks have accused private or charter schools of getting good results due to "skimming" top performers away from the public schools. Cristo Rey specifically chooses kids from the middle of the pack, and then gets most of them attending college a few years later. But of course, this then raises the opposite point: if middling kids can, with a lot of good teaching and hard work, do quite well, does this mean that standardized test scores taken at one point in time mean nothing for a later time?
This is the argument many recent "myth of the gifted child" type articles have made. I (as you can imagine) don't think this is the case. The Cristo Rey schools do an amazing job preparing kids for college with rigorous course work. On the other hand, their standardized test scores are (as principals themselves have told me) not necessarily what they would like. Good but not great. Which suggests that a good school can boost scores, but in and of itself cannot get everyone from a 50th percentile level to, say, the top 5% of SAT scores. Like everything, test scores are likely a combination of hard work, good training, and some individual factors.
Sometimes these individual factors make schools not a good fit - which is one reason Cristo Rey encourages students who are scoring at the very top levels on standardized tests to apply to more elite prep schools that serve big cities. This enables these kids to have their academic needs met, and ensures that Cristo Rey schools are focusing on a group of kids with about the same level of preparation. It is ability grouping by admission, but it is one of the factors that make these schools work. Kids will be neither failing, nor bored.
I guess I won't be writing about these schools for the Wall Street Journal, since Daniel Henninger's Wonderland column today already covers them ("How About a Good Catholic Story?")
But I wanted to bring up some interesting points here, which I think have implications for education more broadly. Some folks have accused private or charter schools of getting good results due to "skimming" top performers away from the public schools. Cristo Rey specifically chooses kids from the middle of the pack, and then gets most of them attending college a few years later. But of course, this then raises the opposite point: if middling kids can, with a lot of good teaching and hard work, do quite well, does this mean that standardized test scores taken at one point in time mean nothing for a later time?
This is the argument many recent "myth of the gifted child" type articles have made. I (as you can imagine) don't think this is the case. The Cristo Rey schools do an amazing job preparing kids for college with rigorous course work. On the other hand, their standardized test scores are (as principals themselves have told me) not necessarily what they would like. Good but not great. Which suggests that a good school can boost scores, but in and of itself cannot get everyone from a 50th percentile level to, say, the top 5% of SAT scores. Like everything, test scores are likely a combination of hard work, good training, and some individual factors.
Sometimes these individual factors make schools not a good fit - which is one reason Cristo Rey encourages students who are scoring at the very top levels on standardized tests to apply to more elite prep schools that serve big cities. This enables these kids to have their academic needs met, and ensures that Cristo Rey schools are focusing on a group of kids with about the same level of preparation. It is ability grouping by admission, but it is one of the factors that make these schools work. Kids will be neither failing, nor bored.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
