Florida Students Get "Majors"
As part of a push to make high school more meaningful for kids, Florida legislators passed a law last week that requires students to declare majors. Students take a variety of core courses, then four electives in their major, and four other electives.
In theory, this is a good idea. Too much of high school focuses nothing on the world beyond it. So I'm inclined to wait and see how it goes. Perhaps schools will start expanding their offerings to include advanced science classes for science majors, specific literature genres (say, 20th century, or women writers, or Latin America) for literary types.
But I worry that, instead, this well-intentioned program will lead to bad results for gifted kids. Many high schools are a bit narrow-minded on what constitutes a career. South Carolina instituted "career clusters" recently to boost student interest. This link leads to some literature about each of the clusters. I'm not sure I could have chosen journalism, for instance -- or that a budding Egyptologist would find much to interest her (unless she could somehow link it to the hospitality industry). Kids who want academic majors would also, under the Florida majors plan, have far less time to take arts electives like orchestra or choir. This will force kids with "multipotentiality" to commit to one interest, or else fund their study on their own after school.
Ideally, schools would have adopted the "majors" approach on their own, and kids would be free to move between schools in a given area. That way, if students were interested in a focused, in-depth study in a career or academic area, they could attend that school. But it's easier to enact policies on a state level, so that's what Florida has chosen to do. We'll see how it turns out.
Wednesday, June 14, 2006
Sunday, June 11, 2006
William Huston, the "Brightest Boy"
Today's New York Times has an obituary on William Huston, who was chosen by Thomas Edison as the nation's "brightest boy" in 1929. Edison had bemoaned the lack of interest in math and science among youth (sound familiar?) and sponsored a nationwide scholarship contest to find the brightest young person and give him a full scholarship to college. Girls were not part of this contest; apparently Mr. Edison never considered that the brightest kid in America (if such a thing can be determined) might be female.
Anyway, William Huston won the contest and a scholarship to MIT. He died May 25 in Arizona at age 93. You can read about his life here.
For all the talk of prodigies flaming out, Huston offers a different version of this tale. Tagged at a young age as being the nation's brightest boy, he didn't let that label get to him. He did "rocket science" research for NASA, had a seemingly rewarding family life (a long marriage and six children), and basically didn't berate his children with tales of being the brightest boy (they say he never mentioned it). Given how many people constantly rehash their glory days as, say, high school football players, I found the tale pretty refreshing.
Today's New York Times has an obituary on William Huston, who was chosen by Thomas Edison as the nation's "brightest boy" in 1929. Edison had bemoaned the lack of interest in math and science among youth (sound familiar?) and sponsored a nationwide scholarship contest to find the brightest young person and give him a full scholarship to college. Girls were not part of this contest; apparently Mr. Edison never considered that the brightest kid in America (if such a thing can be determined) might be female.
Anyway, William Huston won the contest and a scholarship to MIT. He died May 25 in Arizona at age 93. You can read about his life here.
For all the talk of prodigies flaming out, Huston offers a different version of this tale. Tagged at a young age as being the nation's brightest boy, he didn't let that label get to him. He did "rocket science" research for NASA, had a seemingly rewarding family life (a long marriage and six children), and basically didn't berate his children with tales of being the brightest boy (they say he never mentioned it). Given how many people constantly rehash their glory days as, say, high school football players, I found the tale pretty refreshing.
Wednesday, June 07, 2006
The Decline of the Chemistry Set
Quick quiz: What do Intel co-founder Gordon Moore, internet guru Vint Cerf, and Hewlett-Packard co-founder David Packard have in common? Besides their later tech accomplishments, all spent their childhoods blowing things up with chemistry sets.
And unfortunately, they may be the last generation able to do so. "There's no question that stinks and bangs and crystals and colors are what drew kids -- particularly boys-- to science," Nobel Prize winner Roald Hoffmann told Wired magazine recently. "Now the potential for stinks and bangs has been legislated out."
Yep, chemistry sets are fun stuff for bright kids who want to do more real science than the ball-dropping "experiments" in school allow. But good luck finding a decent one these days.
According to Steve Silberman's recent story in Wired on the topic, the crackdown began after Timothy McVeigh used commonly available chemicals to construct the bomb that tore through Oklahoma City in 1995. General terror worries after September 11 prompted more concern. Then add the crystal meth epidemic to the mix. Thirty states have passed laws in recent years restricting sales of chemicals and equipment that can be used to make that drug. According to Wired, in Texas, you have to register Erlenmeyer flasks with the state's Department of Public Safety. The rise of the internet means enterprising kids can now concoct explosions straightaway, without having to tinker with the set for a while, first. And did I mention how litigious people have become? Imagine the lawsuits a real chemistry set could inspire.
But all this means that the old Porter Chemical Company Chemcraft labs-in-a-box can no longer be sold. That set had enough equipment to perform 800 experiments. The new Mr. Wizard Science Set, by contrast, comes with only five chemicals, including laundry starch. Ho hum.
The only "real" set still available, according to Wired, is the Thames & Kosmos C3000, which retails for $200. But even this top-of-the-line set comes with a list of chemicals you must purchase elsewhere in order to actually do certain experiments. Ted McGuire, the company's head, told Wired that "A lot of retailers are scared to carry a real chemistry set now because of liability concerns... The stuff under your kitchen sink is far more dangerous than the things in our kits, but put the word chemistry on something and people become terrified."
That's too bad because, in case anyone hasn't noticed, America is cranking out fewer scientists than we once did. The kind of science practiced in a lot of classrooms looks nothing like the real thing, where you have to come up with questions and find answers that aren't in the back of the book. Chemistry sets help you do that. Too many inquisitive kids these days, unfortunately, are going to have to settle for a sanitized version of the subject.
Quick quiz: What do Intel co-founder Gordon Moore, internet guru Vint Cerf, and Hewlett-Packard co-founder David Packard have in common? Besides their later tech accomplishments, all spent their childhoods blowing things up with chemistry sets.
And unfortunately, they may be the last generation able to do so. "There's no question that stinks and bangs and crystals and colors are what drew kids -- particularly boys-- to science," Nobel Prize winner Roald Hoffmann told Wired magazine recently. "Now the potential for stinks and bangs has been legislated out."
Yep, chemistry sets are fun stuff for bright kids who want to do more real science than the ball-dropping "experiments" in school allow. But good luck finding a decent one these days.
According to Steve Silberman's recent story in Wired on the topic, the crackdown began after Timothy McVeigh used commonly available chemicals to construct the bomb that tore through Oklahoma City in 1995. General terror worries after September 11 prompted more concern. Then add the crystal meth epidemic to the mix. Thirty states have passed laws in recent years restricting sales of chemicals and equipment that can be used to make that drug. According to Wired, in Texas, you have to register Erlenmeyer flasks with the state's Department of Public Safety. The rise of the internet means enterprising kids can now concoct explosions straightaway, without having to tinker with the set for a while, first. And did I mention how litigious people have become? Imagine the lawsuits a real chemistry set could inspire.
But all this means that the old Porter Chemical Company Chemcraft labs-in-a-box can no longer be sold. That set had enough equipment to perform 800 experiments. The new Mr. Wizard Science Set, by contrast, comes with only five chemicals, including laundry starch. Ho hum.
The only "real" set still available, according to Wired, is the Thames & Kosmos C3000, which retails for $200. But even this top-of-the-line set comes with a list of chemicals you must purchase elsewhere in order to actually do certain experiments. Ted McGuire, the company's head, told Wired that "A lot of retailers are scared to carry a real chemistry set now because of liability concerns... The stuff under your kitchen sink is far more dangerous than the things in our kits, but put the word chemistry on something and people become terrified."
That's too bad because, in case anyone hasn't noticed, America is cranking out fewer scientists than we once did. The kind of science practiced in a lot of classrooms looks nothing like the real thing, where you have to come up with questions and find answers that aren't in the back of the book. Chemistry sets help you do that. Too many inquisitive kids these days, unfortunately, are going to have to settle for a sanitized version of the subject.
Monday, June 05, 2006
The Condition of Education
The U.S. Department of Education released its annual Condition of Education report recently. This phone book-size list of statistics has a lot of fascinating information (a list of indicators is available here), but two things in particular touch on subjects we've discussed on this blog.
First, the "boy troubles" are for real. Women now comprise 59% of all graduate students, including 50% of professional degree students (ie, law, medicine, business). While the parity is nice, it's come about partly because of an 11% drop in men seeking professional degrees. Women continue to earn the vast majority of undergraduate degrees. The findings are so striking that that's the statistic the Associated Press chose to highlight in its article on the Condition of Education report.
Second, homeschooling is rising, and it's becoming an interesting blend of working at the kitchen table and other things. Over two percent of all US students are now homeschooled according to this indicator. While the majority of homeschoolers (82%) received all their instruction at home, some 12% of homeschoolers attended school for up to 9 hours a week, and 6% were enrolled between 9-25 hours.
These are positive statistics, because they show that at least 18% of schools are willing to show some flexibility on homeschooling. Most districts maintain that you're either all in or all out, and some homeschooling families want nothing to do with their local schools, for religious or ideological reasons. But many parents of gifted kids homeschool because they don't see any other options for getting their kids the challenge they need. Many of these parents would like to have their children take music, art or gym classes with other students, or specialized subjects (for instance, Mandarin) that the parents themselves might not be able to teach. That 18% of schools are willing to consider such options is a start. By the time a third say it's OK, we'll reach critical mass-- and see a lot more a la carte education. More flexibility is always a good thing for kids who don't fit inside the educational box.
The U.S. Department of Education released its annual Condition of Education report recently. This phone book-size list of statistics has a lot of fascinating information (a list of indicators is available here), but two things in particular touch on subjects we've discussed on this blog.
First, the "boy troubles" are for real. Women now comprise 59% of all graduate students, including 50% of professional degree students (ie, law, medicine, business). While the parity is nice, it's come about partly because of an 11% drop in men seeking professional degrees. Women continue to earn the vast majority of undergraduate degrees. The findings are so striking that that's the statistic the Associated Press chose to highlight in its article on the Condition of Education report.
Second, homeschooling is rising, and it's becoming an interesting blend of working at the kitchen table and other things. Over two percent of all US students are now homeschooled according to this indicator. While the majority of homeschoolers (82%) received all their instruction at home, some 12% of homeschoolers attended school for up to 9 hours a week, and 6% were enrolled between 9-25 hours.
These are positive statistics, because they show that at least 18% of schools are willing to show some flexibility on homeschooling. Most districts maintain that you're either all in or all out, and some homeschooling families want nothing to do with their local schools, for religious or ideological reasons. But many parents of gifted kids homeschool because they don't see any other options for getting their kids the challenge they need. Many of these parents would like to have their children take music, art or gym classes with other students, or specialized subjects (for instance, Mandarin) that the parents themselves might not be able to teach. That 18% of schools are willing to consider such options is a start. By the time a third say it's OK, we'll reach critical mass-- and see a lot more a la carte education. More flexibility is always a good thing for kids who don't fit inside the educational box.
Wednesday, May 31, 2006
Individual tracking comes to NCLB
On this blog, I've complained that No Child Left Behind testing doesn't track progress for gifted kids. For starters, NCLB compares groups of students over time -- say, African American fourth graders in 2004 vs. African American fourth graders in 2005. Since these aren't the same kids, the test results can show broad changes in a school, but don't show whether individual kids are learning. Second, the use of grade level tests means that children who score at the 99th percentile for their grade don't register a change one way or the other -- so you don't know if they're in a holding pattern or growing.
At least NCLB is now addressing the first problem. The federal Department of Education recently chose two states, North Carolina and Tennessee, to participate in a pilot program that tracks individual student progress. A kid in fourth grade in 2006 will be compared against his own test scores from 2005. If he doesn't show adequate yearly progress, the school can be held accountable.
If the pilot program produces usable data, then the program could spread to other states. That's a start. Then we need NCLB to ask schools to use above grade-level tests for gifted kids. A fourth grader who scores at the 75th percentile on a 7th grade test, and then at the 88th percentile on an 8th grade test a year later, is making progress. We don't know if that's true if she just takes the fourth grade, then fifth grade test.
On this blog, I've complained that No Child Left Behind testing doesn't track progress for gifted kids. For starters, NCLB compares groups of students over time -- say, African American fourth graders in 2004 vs. African American fourth graders in 2005. Since these aren't the same kids, the test results can show broad changes in a school, but don't show whether individual kids are learning. Second, the use of grade level tests means that children who score at the 99th percentile for their grade don't register a change one way or the other -- so you don't know if they're in a holding pattern or growing.
At least NCLB is now addressing the first problem. The federal Department of Education recently chose two states, North Carolina and Tennessee, to participate in a pilot program that tracks individual student progress. A kid in fourth grade in 2006 will be compared against his own test scores from 2005. If he doesn't show adequate yearly progress, the school can be held accountable.
If the pilot program produces usable data, then the program could spread to other states. That's a start. Then we need NCLB to ask schools to use above grade-level tests for gifted kids. A fourth grader who scores at the 75th percentile on a 7th grade test, and then at the 88th percentile on an 8th grade test a year later, is making progress. We don't know if that's true if she just takes the fourth grade, then fifth grade test.
Monday, May 29, 2006
Indiana Academy graduation, 2006
I spent this Saturday at the Indiana Academy for Science, Mathematics and the Humanities in Muncie, Indiana. The school flattered me greatly by asking me to give the commencement address. So I did, and had a great time doing it. I was also thrilled to see that there were about 140 kids graduating. When I graduated in 1997, fewer than 100 of us walked across the Emens Auditorium stage. It's great that this public, residential school for gifted kids is growing. May it continue to do so!
You can read my speech at my website.
I am happy to report that the graduates did not throw rotten eggs at me. In fact, some seemed to like the speech :)
I spent this Saturday at the Indiana Academy for Science, Mathematics and the Humanities in Muncie, Indiana. The school flattered me greatly by asking me to give the commencement address. So I did, and had a great time doing it. I was also thrilled to see that there were about 140 kids graduating. When I graduated in 1997, fewer than 100 of us walked across the Emens Auditorium stage. It's great that this public, residential school for gifted kids is growing. May it continue to do so!
You can read my speech at my website.
I am happy to report that the graduates did not throw rotten eggs at me. In fact, some seemed to like the speech :)
Friday, May 26, 2006
Boy Troubles
I was excited to learn yesterday that Richard Whitmire, an editorial writer at USA Today (and my former colleague), had just landed a six-figure book contract to expand on his recent New Republic article called “Boys and Books.” In that essay, Whitmire called attention to the declining academic performance of boys. He lists reasons for their sliding college enrollment rates. (Unfortunately, the New Republic website is subscription only)
Schools, Whitmire says, not only don’t shortchange girls, they favor them. That’s not intentional – it’s just that the standard college curriculum and today’s workplaces require a lot of verbal and reading skills. Boys, for whatever reason, on average, are slower to learn these skills as children. Then there’s the social aspect. While middle- and upper-class fathers read at night after work, in many blue-collar type families, reading is a “sissy” thing (as Whitmire puts it). Fathers do a lot less of it. Then the boys go to school and all day long do something they think isn’t very important – and so they disengage.
I have mixed feelings about this thesis. Whitmire has some interesting excuses for boys’ failures in school. Take this one: “Basing grades on turning in homework on time guarantees lower grades for boys. Studies consistently show boys have more trouble than girls turning in homework on time. Some educators and parents explain this by saying that many boys simply forget or decline to turn in completed homework. Here's the boy-thinking: If I answered the homework question to my satisfaction, the task is done. Why turn it in?” Yet even in very male worlds like banking and consulting, you get no credit for solving a problem until you share the answers. Those are systems set up by men who are probably a lot more egocentric than the average boy. I’d buy the forgetfulness thesis first. Maybe boys will be boys when it comes to having their growing brains leap around frenetically.
On the other hand, I would agree that many classrooms are more girl-friendly than boy-friendly. I came across this fascinating list of classroom practices that hurt boys. Culprits range from distracting, frilly decorations to journaling to the lack of male teachers in many schools. Sitting still through boring classes is hard for girls and boys, but boys can be more rambunctious about it (and are labeled as ADD more often). Competition drills get frowned upon, and class discussions reign.
Of course, you don’t have to be male to dislike class discussions on people’s feelings. I always hated them because, well, the teacher knows things the other children in the class don’t. There’s limited info to be gained from listening to your classmates blather before they’ve had time to study the material. A recent Simpsons episode made fun of these stereotypes by having Springfield Elementary split into girls and boys schools. The girls talked about their feelings about math but, much to Lisa’s chagrin, never did any of it. So she dressed up as a boy to study their math, only to learn the boys found it fun to beat each other up constantly. They bounced off the walls.
As the show suggests, I don’t think splitting up boys and girls is the answer. Then people become too inclined to give credence to gender stereotypes. As Whitmire points out, the answer is to look at schools that overcome the gender gap. These schools tend to have high expectations for everyone and work with kids to find what works for each of them. That’s not a terribly snazzy solution to this latest educational crisis but, on the other hand, you do get results.
I was excited to learn yesterday that Richard Whitmire, an editorial writer at USA Today (and my former colleague), had just landed a six-figure book contract to expand on his recent New Republic article called “Boys and Books.” In that essay, Whitmire called attention to the declining academic performance of boys. He lists reasons for their sliding college enrollment rates. (Unfortunately, the New Republic website is subscription only)
Schools, Whitmire says, not only don’t shortchange girls, they favor them. That’s not intentional – it’s just that the standard college curriculum and today’s workplaces require a lot of verbal and reading skills. Boys, for whatever reason, on average, are slower to learn these skills as children. Then there’s the social aspect. While middle- and upper-class fathers read at night after work, in many blue-collar type families, reading is a “sissy” thing (as Whitmire puts it). Fathers do a lot less of it. Then the boys go to school and all day long do something they think isn’t very important – and so they disengage.
I have mixed feelings about this thesis. Whitmire has some interesting excuses for boys’ failures in school. Take this one: “Basing grades on turning in homework on time guarantees lower grades for boys. Studies consistently show boys have more trouble than girls turning in homework on time. Some educators and parents explain this by saying that many boys simply forget or decline to turn in completed homework. Here's the boy-thinking: If I answered the homework question to my satisfaction, the task is done. Why turn it in?” Yet even in very male worlds like banking and consulting, you get no credit for solving a problem until you share the answers. Those are systems set up by men who are probably a lot more egocentric than the average boy. I’d buy the forgetfulness thesis first. Maybe boys will be boys when it comes to having their growing brains leap around frenetically.
On the other hand, I would agree that many classrooms are more girl-friendly than boy-friendly. I came across this fascinating list of classroom practices that hurt boys. Culprits range from distracting, frilly decorations to journaling to the lack of male teachers in many schools. Sitting still through boring classes is hard for girls and boys, but boys can be more rambunctious about it (and are labeled as ADD more often). Competition drills get frowned upon, and class discussions reign.
Of course, you don’t have to be male to dislike class discussions on people’s feelings. I always hated them because, well, the teacher knows things the other children in the class don’t. There’s limited info to be gained from listening to your classmates blather before they’ve had time to study the material. A recent Simpsons episode made fun of these stereotypes by having Springfield Elementary split into girls and boys schools. The girls talked about their feelings about math but, much to Lisa’s chagrin, never did any of it. So she dressed up as a boy to study their math, only to learn the boys found it fun to beat each other up constantly. They bounced off the walls.
As the show suggests, I don’t think splitting up boys and girls is the answer. Then people become too inclined to give credence to gender stereotypes. As Whitmire points out, the answer is to look at schools that overcome the gender gap. These schools tend to have high expectations for everyone and work with kids to find what works for each of them. That’s not a terribly snazzy solution to this latest educational crisis but, on the other hand, you do get results.
Wednesday, May 24, 2006
Miss America vs. the Spelling Bees
A few weeks ago, I complained on this blog that spelling bees gave a false impression of what intelligence is. That may be true, but on the other hand, they're getting some amazing attention of late. USA Today has an interesting piece today pointing out that, this year, while ABC dropped the Miss America pageant, it is broadcasting the finals of the Scripps National Spelling Bee in prime time. Clearly, something has happened when a major network decrees that letter-slinging 12-year-olds make better TV than swimsuit-clad co-eds.
I have a theory on this. The Miss America pageant has turned viewers off these past few years by becoming horribly confused. It's not really a "beauty pageant" anymore, it's a "scholarship contest." So the contestants wind up being pretty, but not too pretty, talented, but not too talented (they can't be professional performers), and they have to feign interest in the most politically correct causes imaginable. The girls are smart, but they're not judged on their academic prowess. Who wants to watch that?
On the other hand, the Scripps National Spelling Bee has no such confusion. Candidates win by spelling words correctly. Anyone can figure that out. I compare it to the Miss USA pageant, which is pretty much all about looks. Miss USA has seen its TV ratings rise of late, and so has the spelling bee. Are you all tuning in to the spell-down finals on June 1?
A few weeks ago, I complained on this blog that spelling bees gave a false impression of what intelligence is. That may be true, but on the other hand, they're getting some amazing attention of late. USA Today has an interesting piece today pointing out that, this year, while ABC dropped the Miss America pageant, it is broadcasting the finals of the Scripps National Spelling Bee in prime time. Clearly, something has happened when a major network decrees that letter-slinging 12-year-olds make better TV than swimsuit-clad co-eds.
I have a theory on this. The Miss America pageant has turned viewers off these past few years by becoming horribly confused. It's not really a "beauty pageant" anymore, it's a "scholarship contest." So the contestants wind up being pretty, but not too pretty, talented, but not too talented (they can't be professional performers), and they have to feign interest in the most politically correct causes imaginable. The girls are smart, but they're not judged on their academic prowess. Who wants to watch that?
On the other hand, the Scripps National Spelling Bee has no such confusion. Candidates win by spelling words correctly. Anyone can figure that out. I compare it to the Miss USA pageant, which is pretty much all about looks. Miss USA has seen its TV ratings rise of late, and so has the spelling bee. Are you all tuning in to the spell-down finals on June 1?
Tuesday, May 23, 2006
Another Early College Program
One of the things I'm trying to do with this blog is to help parents of gifted kids find the resources that are available to them. To that end, I want to share another early college option I've come across: Simon's Rock College in Massachusetts.
This small, private liberal arts college is set up specifically for younger scholars. Students usually enroll after their sophomore year in high school. They live on campus, and either complete 2-year degrees and transfer, or complete a 4-year degree. Simon's Rock is affiliated with nearby Bard College. You can read more about their programs at www.simons-rock.edu.
One of the reasons I find Simon's Rock appealing is that the institution really does try to create the "collegiate" feel that students enrolling early elsewhere miss out on. The Portland Press Herald (of Maine) had an interesting article two weeks ago about a 14-year-old girl who was admitted to the University of Maine -- and indeed was given a full scholarship -- but wasn't allowed to live on campus. You can read the story here.
I understand the university's point. College dorms are sometimes a more adult environment than 14-year-olds should be exposed to, even if the 14-year-olds are mature. And the university is no doubt worried about liability. On the other hand, living with other scholars is a big part of the fun of going to college -- discussing ideas with other bright young people, making friends, and all that. Simon's Rock lets 15- and 16-year-olds do that in an environment set up for them. It certainly isn't cheap -- tuition, room and board top $41,000 a year -- but it is an option for kids too bored with high school to see staying two more years.
One of the things I'm trying to do with this blog is to help parents of gifted kids find the resources that are available to them. To that end, I want to share another early college option I've come across: Simon's Rock College in Massachusetts.
This small, private liberal arts college is set up specifically for younger scholars. Students usually enroll after their sophomore year in high school. They live on campus, and either complete 2-year degrees and transfer, or complete a 4-year degree. Simon's Rock is affiliated with nearby Bard College. You can read more about their programs at www.simons-rock.edu.
One of the reasons I find Simon's Rock appealing is that the institution really does try to create the "collegiate" feel that students enrolling early elsewhere miss out on. The Portland Press Herald (of Maine) had an interesting article two weeks ago about a 14-year-old girl who was admitted to the University of Maine -- and indeed was given a full scholarship -- but wasn't allowed to live on campus. You can read the story here.
I understand the university's point. College dorms are sometimes a more adult environment than 14-year-olds should be exposed to, even if the 14-year-olds are mature. And the university is no doubt worried about liability. On the other hand, living with other scholars is a big part of the fun of going to college -- discussing ideas with other bright young people, making friends, and all that. Simon's Rock lets 15- and 16-year-olds do that in an environment set up for them. It certainly isn't cheap -- tuition, room and board top $41,000 a year -- but it is an option for kids too bored with high school to see staying two more years.
Thursday, May 18, 2006
Entrepreneurship Education
Yesterday I met with Steve Mariotti, a former high school teacher (and business executive) who founded and runs the National Foundation for Teaching Entrepreneurship. NFTE's offices are located on Wall Street. Indeed, much of the backing comes from banks and investment firms. Most of NFTE's main work, however, is done in low-income high schools across the country, and in low income communities around the world.
Basically, students take a course in entrepreneurship that uses a text book called How to Start and Operate a Small Business. Kids learn about profits and losses, calculating rates of return, writing business and marketing plans, dealing with customers and all those things. Many of the schools that use the curriculum have students start a (very low capital) business and ask them to try running it for part of the course's duration.
Mariotti came up with this idea when he noticed that his students at his South Bronx high school were not interested in many academic things, but they were interested in money (aren't we all?) Specifically, they were interested in ways of making money. Many had a street-smarts sense of marketing, and they enjoyed hearing about Mariotti's experience running an import-export company. I'll back up there for a second -- Mariotti started his career at Ford, started an import-export business, then was mugged in the early 1980's by a group of New York City kids. They shoved him around a bit when they realized he had only $10 in his wallet at the time. Shaken by the whole experience, he decided to confront his fears and try to change a few kids' lives by becoming a teacher. Thus his job in the South Bronx, and thus the eventual founding of NFTE.
The Harvard Graduate School of Education has done some research on NFTE's programs in Boston's schools. The results are fascinating. Only a small percentage of the children who take the high school course in entrepreneurship actually continue running small businesses. Many realize it's a far tougher job than working for someone else!
But low-income students who study entrepreneurship for a year do experience a 32% increase in their level of interest in college. A control group of Boston students experienced a 17% drop during that same period. Students who studied entrepreneurship showed an increase in time spent reading independently; students who didn't spent less time reading on their own. A follow up study found that NFTE students scored about five times higher than the control group on a scale measuring something called "locus of control." That's a fancy way of saying how in control of your own life you feel. People with high scores believe that they can change things in their lives and make things happen that they wish to see happen.
That last finding is pretty exciting. Those of you who've read Stephen Covey's Seven Habits of Highly Effective People know that this locus of control (called "Be Pro-active" in 7 Habits) is the first habit. People who take control of their lives achieve far more than people who don't. That teenagers who've no doubt suffered a lot of discrimination, deprivation and other things can learn to see themselves as the architects of their own existence is cool, to say the least.
The more I've been thinking about the curriculum, the more I've been thinking that parents of gifted kids can adapt some elements for their own children's education. Learning how to run a business requires a kid to draw together information from vastly different areas. Rather than learn something because the text book says he should learn it, he learns it because he figures out that he needs to know it. He does this on his own (and hence increases that locus of control measurement).
Certainly running a business ropes in the 3 R's -- reading marketing literature, writing a business plan or letters to advertisers or literature for customers, using arithmetic to calculate unit costs and profits. And it's also very practical. Interviewing the lady who runs the beauty parlor down the street connects you with the real world in a way that very little in school does.
So parents looking to turn their kids on to a challenging project might try this for the summer. Brainstorm business concepts and, if you're able, provide some small amount of start-up capital (ie, $20 to make post cards about a dog-walking business to distribute to neighbors). Check out several books on starting a business from the library, and have your child make reports on the business's progress (i.e. to you, the main investor). Who knows, at the end of the summer, he might decide to continue. But even if not, he'll have learned some interesting lessons about money, budgeting, and taking control of his education.
Yesterday I met with Steve Mariotti, a former high school teacher (and business executive) who founded and runs the National Foundation for Teaching Entrepreneurship. NFTE's offices are located on Wall Street. Indeed, much of the backing comes from banks and investment firms. Most of NFTE's main work, however, is done in low-income high schools across the country, and in low income communities around the world.
Basically, students take a course in entrepreneurship that uses a text book called How to Start and Operate a Small Business. Kids learn about profits and losses, calculating rates of return, writing business and marketing plans, dealing with customers and all those things. Many of the schools that use the curriculum have students start a (very low capital) business and ask them to try running it for part of the course's duration.
Mariotti came up with this idea when he noticed that his students at his South Bronx high school were not interested in many academic things, but they were interested in money (aren't we all?) Specifically, they were interested in ways of making money. Many had a street-smarts sense of marketing, and they enjoyed hearing about Mariotti's experience running an import-export company. I'll back up there for a second -- Mariotti started his career at Ford, started an import-export business, then was mugged in the early 1980's by a group of New York City kids. They shoved him around a bit when they realized he had only $10 in his wallet at the time. Shaken by the whole experience, he decided to confront his fears and try to change a few kids' lives by becoming a teacher. Thus his job in the South Bronx, and thus the eventual founding of NFTE.
The Harvard Graduate School of Education has done some research on NFTE's programs in Boston's schools. The results are fascinating. Only a small percentage of the children who take the high school course in entrepreneurship actually continue running small businesses. Many realize it's a far tougher job than working for someone else!
But low-income students who study entrepreneurship for a year do experience a 32% increase in their level of interest in college. A control group of Boston students experienced a 17% drop during that same period. Students who studied entrepreneurship showed an increase in time spent reading independently; students who didn't spent less time reading on their own. A follow up study found that NFTE students scored about five times higher than the control group on a scale measuring something called "locus of control." That's a fancy way of saying how in control of your own life you feel. People with high scores believe that they can change things in their lives and make things happen that they wish to see happen.
That last finding is pretty exciting. Those of you who've read Stephen Covey's Seven Habits of Highly Effective People know that this locus of control (called "Be Pro-active" in 7 Habits) is the first habit. People who take control of their lives achieve far more than people who don't. That teenagers who've no doubt suffered a lot of discrimination, deprivation and other things can learn to see themselves as the architects of their own existence is cool, to say the least.
The more I've been thinking about the curriculum, the more I've been thinking that parents of gifted kids can adapt some elements for their own children's education. Learning how to run a business requires a kid to draw together information from vastly different areas. Rather than learn something because the text book says he should learn it, he learns it because he figures out that he needs to know it. He does this on his own (and hence increases that locus of control measurement).
Certainly running a business ropes in the 3 R's -- reading marketing literature, writing a business plan or letters to advertisers or literature for customers, using arithmetic to calculate unit costs and profits. And it's also very practical. Interviewing the lady who runs the beauty parlor down the street connects you with the real world in a way that very little in school does.
So parents looking to turn their kids on to a challenging project might try this for the summer. Brainstorm business concepts and, if you're able, provide some small amount of start-up capital (ie, $20 to make post cards about a dog-walking business to distribute to neighbors). Check out several books on starting a business from the library, and have your child make reports on the business's progress (i.e. to you, the main investor). Who knows, at the end of the summer, he might decide to continue. But even if not, he'll have learned some interesting lessons about money, budgeting, and taking control of his education.
Tuesday, May 16, 2006
Gifted Kids Skip Standardized Tests
In high school, I once opted out of a grade-level standardized test because it would have required me to miss several days of my above grade-level math class. This required some intense negotiation with the school. Grade-level tests are pretty much useless to gifted kids. When taken broadly by all kids, though, test scores can make a school look good or bad. So there's a trade-off. The gifted kid taking the grade-level test is bored, and has her time wasted. But the school gets the benefit of having a high score included in its average. Obviously, given the stakes these days, schools will do anything they can to keep kids from opting out. In most states they aren't even allowed to do so (my school took the line that such tests were like jury duty-- though eventually they relented).
In this era of increased standardized testing, this battle is heating up even more. The Sacramento Bee ran an article last week called Kids Skipping STAR Test noting that 135 students at Davis Senior High School refused to take their grade-level tests. These STAR tests were given right before the SAT and AP tests. So students and their families elected to have the kids stay home and study for the AP exams and SAT, which matter more for individuals.
The school was furious. Only 34 parents requested exemptions last year.
As the principal pointed out, the results of the STAR test are used to rank schools. Davis is, no doubt, a school that posts high test scores. Now the test results might not show that. Indeed, with 100 more high achievers opting out, the school's test scores will drop.
I see the school's point. But of course, my sympathies lie with the bright kids who opted out. The principal may claim that the evidence of so many 99th percentile scores would indicate that Davis is a good school, but gifted kids will score at the 99th percentile on grade level tests even if they're not learning a thing. Such scores tell you nothing about the quality of the school with regard to gifted kids. A school that challenged gifted kids would show a rise in an individual's test scores. To get that for kids who start at the 99th percentile, you have to test them above grade level.
I'd like to see a testing rubric that does just that. A few months ago on this blog, we discussed testing software that would let you answer questions at a higher and higher level until you hit your max. That would give you an indication of your real grade level. You could take a similar test at the end of the school year. If you scored higher -- good for the school. If you didn't, the public should know that -- even if you're testing three grades above level, and would have scored a 99 both times on a grade-level test.
But California doesn't have such an option in place. There are other compromises, of course. The state and the schools could develop some formula for subbing SAT scores and AP scores for grade-level tests. This would require an asterisk in the report. But personally, I'd be more interested in learning that students earned a lot of 5's on AP tests than a school's grade-level scores. The AP tests are enough above grade level that 5's do tell you something. We shall see if anyone tries anything along these lines. In the meantime, though, expect to see a lot more battles in this area over the next few years.
In high school, I once opted out of a grade-level standardized test because it would have required me to miss several days of my above grade-level math class. This required some intense negotiation with the school. Grade-level tests are pretty much useless to gifted kids. When taken broadly by all kids, though, test scores can make a school look good or bad. So there's a trade-off. The gifted kid taking the grade-level test is bored, and has her time wasted. But the school gets the benefit of having a high score included in its average. Obviously, given the stakes these days, schools will do anything they can to keep kids from opting out. In most states they aren't even allowed to do so (my school took the line that such tests were like jury duty-- though eventually they relented).
In this era of increased standardized testing, this battle is heating up even more. The Sacramento Bee ran an article last week called Kids Skipping STAR Test noting that 135 students at Davis Senior High School refused to take their grade-level tests. These STAR tests were given right before the SAT and AP tests. So students and their families elected to have the kids stay home and study for the AP exams and SAT, which matter more for individuals.
The school was furious. Only 34 parents requested exemptions last year.
As the principal pointed out, the results of the STAR test are used to rank schools. Davis is, no doubt, a school that posts high test scores. Now the test results might not show that. Indeed, with 100 more high achievers opting out, the school's test scores will drop.
I see the school's point. But of course, my sympathies lie with the bright kids who opted out. The principal may claim that the evidence of so many 99th percentile scores would indicate that Davis is a good school, but gifted kids will score at the 99th percentile on grade level tests even if they're not learning a thing. Such scores tell you nothing about the quality of the school with regard to gifted kids. A school that challenged gifted kids would show a rise in an individual's test scores. To get that for kids who start at the 99th percentile, you have to test them above grade level.
I'd like to see a testing rubric that does just that. A few months ago on this blog, we discussed testing software that would let you answer questions at a higher and higher level until you hit your max. That would give you an indication of your real grade level. You could take a similar test at the end of the school year. If you scored higher -- good for the school. If you didn't, the public should know that -- even if you're testing three grades above level, and would have scored a 99 both times on a grade-level test.
But California doesn't have such an option in place. There are other compromises, of course. The state and the schools could develop some formula for subbing SAT scores and AP scores for grade-level tests. This would require an asterisk in the report. But personally, I'd be more interested in learning that students earned a lot of 5's on AP tests than a school's grade-level scores. The AP tests are enough above grade level that 5's do tell you something. We shall see if anyone tries anything along these lines. In the meantime, though, expect to see a lot more battles in this area over the next few years.
Friday, May 12, 2006
Indiana Academy Graduation
I'll be speaking to the graduating class of 2006 at the Indiana Academy in Muncie, Indiana in about two weeks. As some of you know, this is my alma mater, so I'm very excited about (and flattered by) this opportunity.
The Academy (as students call it) is one of about a dozen public, residential schools for gifted kids nationwide. It's also a little different from most in that the word "Humanities" is in the full school name, and these fields are a crucial part of the curriculum. Almost all of the 150 or so graduating seniors will be going on to college after graduating.
I've been working on a speech, but of course I don't want to take myself too seriously or offer too much life advice when I've only been out of high school nine years myself. So here's a question for Gifted Exchange readers. What do you wish your high school graduation speaker would have said to you?
One possible theme. I just turned in Grindhopping, my next book, to McGraw-Hill today. One of the chapters deals with the idea that fairy godmothers are lazy people. You need a lot of luck to build a good life and a good career, or even to get everything out of college you can. But you can't leave too much up to chance. You have to know where you're going and be prepared to seize on chance opportunities that will help you get there as they arise.
Oh, and another one. Be sure to see the world outside Indiana. Too soon you wind up getting caught up in work and school and family and travel gets a bit more difficult.
Thoughts?
I'll be speaking to the graduating class of 2006 at the Indiana Academy in Muncie, Indiana in about two weeks. As some of you know, this is my alma mater, so I'm very excited about (and flattered by) this opportunity.
The Academy (as students call it) is one of about a dozen public, residential schools for gifted kids nationwide. It's also a little different from most in that the word "Humanities" is in the full school name, and these fields are a crucial part of the curriculum. Almost all of the 150 or so graduating seniors will be going on to college after graduating.
I've been working on a speech, but of course I don't want to take myself too seriously or offer too much life advice when I've only been out of high school nine years myself. So here's a question for Gifted Exchange readers. What do you wish your high school graduation speaker would have said to you?
One possible theme. I just turned in Grindhopping, my next book, to McGraw-Hill today. One of the chapters deals with the idea that fairy godmothers are lazy people. You need a lot of luck to build a good life and a good career, or even to get everything out of college you can. But you can't leave too much up to chance. You have to know where you're going and be prepared to seize on chance opportunities that will help you get there as they arise.
Oh, and another one. Be sure to see the world outside Indiana. Too soon you wind up getting caught up in work and school and family and travel gets a bit more difficult.
Thoughts?
Wednesday, May 10, 2006
Losing our Programming Edge
Though most folks have been paying attention to a different Duke team, Business Week has an interesting article in the May 1 edition about the Duke computer programming squad. Competing in the finals of the ACM International Collegiate Programming Contest in San Antonio, they completed only one of the challenging problems posed to them. The Russian team that won nailed six. Business Week reads into this event a Red Flag in the Brain Game.
Young American students, apparently, do not have the discipline and dedication that winning international computer programming contests requires. Business Week then sets about finding reasons this is so, and actually blames the lovely, inviting green collegiate quads that detract from programming time, Ultimate Frisbee, and all that.
The blaming is a bit tongue-in-cheek. Business Week also notes that many young American programmers are worried that the good programming jobs are going overseas. The magazine then assures us that this is not entirely true -- people with a good head for business and a knack for managing teams will always be in demand here. True. But I'd go a step farther. I think the reason American teams aren't sweeping computer programming contests anymore is that young programmers -- with their logical brains -- are looking at the job market very logically and allocating their time based on what they see.
These programmers know they are good at math and science. They're realizing that people with great math skills can command high salaries on Wall Street. Plenty of people with science and math PhDs also choose to go into management consulting, because they find it more interesting than straight programming. It's those distracting activities and green quads again. As American per capita incomes rise, the brightest, most ambitious people migrate to higher-level, higher-margin jobs. Rather than being the people in companies doing research, they become the folks arranging for licensing deals to acquire that research. Rather than become programmers, they become the people who figure out which problems programmers need to solve.
There's plenty to fret about with American schools not training kids in science and math as rigorously as they might. But this latest lamentation sounds almost like old industrialists claiming the American economy is doomed because we don't make most of our own widgets anymore. Somehow, incomes keep rising. I think our young computer whizzes will do pretty well in life, regardless. Maybe they realize that spending all their time in dark rooms programming won't add as much to their future marketability as networking with their fellow classmates and professors will. We don't seem to be losing our edge in that.
Though most folks have been paying attention to a different Duke team, Business Week has an interesting article in the May 1 edition about the Duke computer programming squad. Competing in the finals of the ACM International Collegiate Programming Contest in San Antonio, they completed only one of the challenging problems posed to them. The Russian team that won nailed six. Business Week reads into this event a Red Flag in the Brain Game.
Young American students, apparently, do not have the discipline and dedication that winning international computer programming contests requires. Business Week then sets about finding reasons this is so, and actually blames the lovely, inviting green collegiate quads that detract from programming time, Ultimate Frisbee, and all that.
The blaming is a bit tongue-in-cheek. Business Week also notes that many young American programmers are worried that the good programming jobs are going overseas. The magazine then assures us that this is not entirely true -- people with a good head for business and a knack for managing teams will always be in demand here. True. But I'd go a step farther. I think the reason American teams aren't sweeping computer programming contests anymore is that young programmers -- with their logical brains -- are looking at the job market very logically and allocating their time based on what they see.
These programmers know they are good at math and science. They're realizing that people with great math skills can command high salaries on Wall Street. Plenty of people with science and math PhDs also choose to go into management consulting, because they find it more interesting than straight programming. It's those distracting activities and green quads again. As American per capita incomes rise, the brightest, most ambitious people migrate to higher-level, higher-margin jobs. Rather than being the people in companies doing research, they become the folks arranging for licensing deals to acquire that research. Rather than become programmers, they become the people who figure out which problems programmers need to solve.
There's plenty to fret about with American schools not training kids in science and math as rigorously as they might. But this latest lamentation sounds almost like old industrialists claiming the American economy is doomed because we don't make most of our own widgets anymore. Somehow, incomes keep rising. I think our young computer whizzes will do pretty well in life, regardless. Maybe they realize that spending all their time in dark rooms programming won't add as much to their future marketability as networking with their fellow classmates and professors will. We don't seem to be losing our edge in that.
Monday, May 08, 2006
Bullying
Jean Sunde Peterson, a professor at Purdue University's College of Education released an interesting study on gifted kids and bullying last month. The university's official press release is available here.
I'm always wary of studies on gifted kids and bullying, because of certain social stereotypes. We assume that gifted kids are the ones with the Coke bottle glasses getting their lunch money stolen and being called "nerd" or "geek." Indeed, since the bullying definition used in Peterson's study included name-calling, it's no surprise that about two-thirds of gifted kids said they'd been bullied. A slightly more surprising result: 16% of gifted kids identified themselves as bullies. And in fact, based on some other studies of bullying, it appears that gifted kids are no more likely to be bullied than other kids. Everyone gets it at some point or another. Perhaps we should be more surprised that one-third of gifted kids hasn'tbeen bullied.
The one difference that does matter is the one Purdue points out in the headline: gifted kids are especially vulnerable to bullying when it does occur. Anyone who's spent a lot of time around gifted young people knows they have a heightened interest in fairness and social justice. This makes it tougher to brush off bullying of themselves -- or others.
Like other children, some gifted children respond to bullying with thoughts of violence. As the researchers pointed out, this could be anything from kicking a trash can to blowing up the school. The problem is that gifted kids are often quite imaginative -- and may dream up more elaborate methods of revenge than a kid whose brain doesn't work that far out ahead. The infamous school shooters had psychoses that begged to be treated, but many of them were also of above-average intelligence. Clay Shrout, who in 1994 murdered his family and took a class hostage in Union, Kentucky, had a tested IQ of 160. At the sentencing of Kip Kinkel, the Springfield, Oregon school shooter, his psychiatrist noted, "He's cognitively bright, above average. Even though he has a learning disability, his overall IQ is high."
There is no easy way around this. In a world where 16% of gifted kids admit to being bullies themselves, ability grouping will create classes where being smart isn't a teasible characteristic, but won't get rid of bullying. The bullies will find something else to attack.
In general, when kids feel good about their accomplishments and their place on the planet, they don't bother bullying other kids, and they brush it off themselves. This isn't a call for self-esteem building exercises, though. When kids are challenged, work hard, and have caring adults around them, self-esteem follows. That will make bullying less of a problem for gifted kids and other kids alike.
Jean Sunde Peterson, a professor at Purdue University's College of Education released an interesting study on gifted kids and bullying last month. The university's official press release is available here.
I'm always wary of studies on gifted kids and bullying, because of certain social stereotypes. We assume that gifted kids are the ones with the Coke bottle glasses getting their lunch money stolen and being called "nerd" or "geek." Indeed, since the bullying definition used in Peterson's study included name-calling, it's no surprise that about two-thirds of gifted kids said they'd been bullied. A slightly more surprising result: 16% of gifted kids identified themselves as bullies. And in fact, based on some other studies of bullying, it appears that gifted kids are no more likely to be bullied than other kids. Everyone gets it at some point or another. Perhaps we should be more surprised that one-third of gifted kids hasn'tbeen bullied.
The one difference that does matter is the one Purdue points out in the headline: gifted kids are especially vulnerable to bullying when it does occur. Anyone who's spent a lot of time around gifted young people knows they have a heightened interest in fairness and social justice. This makes it tougher to brush off bullying of themselves -- or others.
Like other children, some gifted children respond to bullying with thoughts of violence. As the researchers pointed out, this could be anything from kicking a trash can to blowing up the school. The problem is that gifted kids are often quite imaginative -- and may dream up more elaborate methods of revenge than a kid whose brain doesn't work that far out ahead. The infamous school shooters had psychoses that begged to be treated, but many of them were also of above-average intelligence. Clay Shrout, who in 1994 murdered his family and took a class hostage in Union, Kentucky, had a tested IQ of 160. At the sentencing of Kip Kinkel, the Springfield, Oregon school shooter, his psychiatrist noted, "He's cognitively bright, above average. Even though he has a learning disability, his overall IQ is high."
There is no easy way around this. In a world where 16% of gifted kids admit to being bullies themselves, ability grouping will create classes where being smart isn't a teasible characteristic, but won't get rid of bullying. The bullies will find something else to attack.
In general, when kids feel good about their accomplishments and their place on the planet, they don't bother bullying other kids, and they brush it off themselves. This isn't a call for self-esteem building exercises, though. When kids are challenged, work hard, and have caring adults around them, self-esteem follows. That will make bullying less of a problem for gifted kids and other kids alike.
Wednesday, May 03, 2006
Gifted Homeschooling
A few parents have remarked on this blog that they're investigating homeschooling their gifted kids. It's a popular option. When we were doing research for Genius Denied, the Davidsons told me that about half the families the Davidson Institute for Talent Development works with homeschool their children at some point during the kids' K-12 career. Few parents start off intending to homeschool. They're not religiously or philosophically opposed to public schools. It's just that the regular education programs their local schools offer don't work for their kids. Attempts to make accommodations go awry. So the parents take their kids out of school and attempt to teach them at home.
Of course, with gifted kids, this can be a problem too. As one mom told us, "Homeschooling an extremely gifted child is daunting. What works today is guaranteed not to work in six months. 'Canned' curricula are useless. Every single day is a challenging adventure."
So most parents of gifted kids don't wind up just teaching them at the kitchen table from the various curricular packages. They cobble together "school" from college classes, tutors, distance learning, and even half-day programs or pull-out programs at schools that are OK with that sort of thing. For instance, a kid might take calculus at the high school, music and art electives with her age-peers at the local middle school, study literature through an online provider like Stanford's Educational Program for Gifted Youth, and Spanish with a neighbor who speaks it fluently. That might work for one year. Then you have to find something else that works for the next year. Flexibility is key.
Fortunately, homeschooling parents tend to be wired types who like to help others in the homeschooling community. So there are a lot of homeschooling resources on the internet. I can recommend Hoagies' Gifted Education Pages on homeschooling, available here. While you're there, be sure to read the article in Reason magazine from Daniel Pink, author of Free Agent Nation (available directly here.) He points out that this mish-mash style of education is actually closer to the way a lot of us assemble our careers than the cookie-cutter style too many schools promote. That may be small comfort when you're tearing your hair out because you carved out 6 months to learn multiplication and your kid learned it in 6 hours. But it might inspire a smile.
A few parents have remarked on this blog that they're investigating homeschooling their gifted kids. It's a popular option. When we were doing research for Genius Denied, the Davidsons told me that about half the families the Davidson Institute for Talent Development works with homeschool their children at some point during the kids' K-12 career. Few parents start off intending to homeschool. They're not religiously or philosophically opposed to public schools. It's just that the regular education programs their local schools offer don't work for their kids. Attempts to make accommodations go awry. So the parents take their kids out of school and attempt to teach them at home.
Of course, with gifted kids, this can be a problem too. As one mom told us, "Homeschooling an extremely gifted child is daunting. What works today is guaranteed not to work in six months. 'Canned' curricula are useless. Every single day is a challenging adventure."
So most parents of gifted kids don't wind up just teaching them at the kitchen table from the various curricular packages. They cobble together "school" from college classes, tutors, distance learning, and even half-day programs or pull-out programs at schools that are OK with that sort of thing. For instance, a kid might take calculus at the high school, music and art electives with her age-peers at the local middle school, study literature through an online provider like Stanford's Educational Program for Gifted Youth, and Spanish with a neighbor who speaks it fluently. That might work for one year. Then you have to find something else that works for the next year. Flexibility is key.
Fortunately, homeschooling parents tend to be wired types who like to help others in the homeschooling community. So there are a lot of homeschooling resources on the internet. I can recommend Hoagies' Gifted Education Pages on homeschooling, available here. While you're there, be sure to read the article in Reason magazine from Daniel Pink, author of Free Agent Nation (available directly here.) He points out that this mish-mash style of education is actually closer to the way a lot of us assemble our careers than the cookie-cutter style too many schools promote. That may be small comfort when you're tearing your hair out because you carved out 6 months to learn multiplication and your kid learned it in 6 hours. But it might inspire a smile.
Monday, May 01, 2006
More Books for Gifted Kids
Thanks to everyone who's been posting on the Izzy the Impatient "books for gifted kids" thread. People have also emailed me some names of books, and DITD sent me along some lists. For instance, here is a list of recommended biographies for young gifted kids (I attached the cached page because the actual link was broken for me, but it might not be for you; search "Brookline books gifted kids" for the actual site).
If you scroll down on this list of books for gifted kids, you'll find them broken up by appropriate age. Looking them over, I'd say most of the "junior high/high school" books are fine for younger readers too -- just give them a quick look over before giving the OK. A few I'd really like to recommend: Katherine Patterson's books (from the Great Gilly Hopkins to Jacob Have I Loved) are beautifully written; I also loved Cynthia Voigt's Dicey's Song series. Madeleine L'Engle is exciting for all ages. I think I kept trying to draw the fifth dimension (not terribly successfully) after reading Wrinkle in Time.
Another interesting thing -- some of these lists break apart books for girls and boys. There is a certain comfort in reading about a hero or heroine of your same gender, but many books can easily cross gender lines.
That said, I was at a writing conference this weekend and listened to a panel given by children's book and magazine editors and agents. To a person, they said they are desperate for books for boys. They get very few of these crossing their desks. I wonder if this is a function of the fact that most YA and children's authors are women (as you can see from these lists I've linked to). It's easier, as a woman, to write from a female character's perspective -- Harry Potter being a notable exception (though even that's third person, not first). Maybe parents of boys reading this list can urge their children to grow up to be children's book authors, and expand the literature for future gifted boys.
Thanks to everyone who's been posting on the Izzy the Impatient "books for gifted kids" thread. People have also emailed me some names of books, and DITD sent me along some lists. For instance, here is a list of recommended biographies for young gifted kids (I attached the cached page because the actual link was broken for me, but it might not be for you; search "Brookline books gifted kids" for the actual site).
If you scroll down on this list of books for gifted kids, you'll find them broken up by appropriate age. Looking them over, I'd say most of the "junior high/high school" books are fine for younger readers too -- just give them a quick look over before giving the OK. A few I'd really like to recommend: Katherine Patterson's books (from the Great Gilly Hopkins to Jacob Have I Loved) are beautifully written; I also loved Cynthia Voigt's Dicey's Song series. Madeleine L'Engle is exciting for all ages. I think I kept trying to draw the fifth dimension (not terribly successfully) after reading Wrinkle in Time.
Another interesting thing -- some of these lists break apart books for girls and boys. There is a certain comfort in reading about a hero or heroine of your same gender, but many books can easily cross gender lines.
That said, I was at a writing conference this weekend and listened to a panel given by children's book and magazine editors and agents. To a person, they said they are desperate for books for boys. They get very few of these crossing their desks. I wonder if this is a function of the fact that most YA and children's authors are women (as you can see from these lists I've linked to). It's easier, as a woman, to write from a female character's perspective -- Harry Potter being a notable exception (though even that's third person, not first). Maybe parents of boys reading this list can urge their children to grow up to be children's book authors, and expand the literature for future gifted boys.
Wednesday, April 26, 2006
Opal Mehta and the Prodigy Puzzle, Redux (another long post)
A few months ago on this blog, I wrote about the dearth of literary prodigies. Mathematicians? Musicians? Sure. But you don't see a lot of teens and early 20-somethings cranking out great literature. I said this was partly due to young people not having experienced the full range of human emotions. But then I was happy to learn a 17-year-old Indian-American woman named Kaavya Viswanathan had written a funny, smart book called "How Opal Mehta Got Kissed, Got Wild and Got a Life" about the trials of getting into Harvard. She got a $500,000 3-book contract (the stuff we writers dream about, by the way).
Well, the story appears to be too good to true. Viswanathan lifted whole passages from another young adult novel, then claimed she'd merely "internalized" them from reading the other author's books so many times. Disturbing to me -- though not to others -- is that she shares the book's copyright with a book packager. Apparently, even the idea of this book was not entirely Viswanathan's own. A company helped shape it to be more marketable, and took a chunk of the payment. Normally, an author's agent and publisher help with this, so the fact that her publisher enlisted a book packager implies that they were really pushing to get a young author out there when perhaps Viswanathan's career would have benefitted from waiting (Or not. Many authors would kill to get on the Today show, even if it was because they were accused of plaigerizing).
Anyway, I've been reading about Viswanathan/Opal Mehta at the same time that I saw an Oprah show yesterday on "Little Geniuses." Some of the kids really were. A 16-year-old girl was able to compose piano pieces based on a random series of notes chosen by Oprah. Now, there are rules to that game which makes it less mind-blowing than on first glance, but it's still very impressive.
Others just seemed, well, as well-packaged as Opal Mehta wound up being to get into Harvard. A young man named Noah McCullough was trotted out as a potential presidential candidate in 2032. He's actually written a book (published by Random House) of presidential trivia. He gave pretty vague answers to the political questions, which had Oprah saying she'd vote for him (in reality, he did a political tour last year that was arranged by a Social Security privatization group -- something I support, but which I'm fairly sure Oprah does not -- but hey, why grill a kid on his actual positions?).
Anyway, he reminded me a lot of a kid I went to high school with. This kid had also calculuated the date he intended to become president, and when exactly he could run for Congress. He wore blazers and campaigned in the halls, etc. I Googled my old classmate for the fun of it the other day. He's a corporate lawyer in Illinois. Nothing wrong with that at all. But we've passed the date when he could become a Congressman. Indeed, he could be getting on people's radar screens to run for president in 2012. He isn't.
Saying you want to do something as a kid, and having people humor you or trot you out as the "face" of saving Social Security is one thing. Actually doing it as an adult is another. Likewise, young McCullough may want to run in 2032 as a 37-year-old, but if there's a popular Republican incumbent then, his party won't allow him to. This is the nature of looking at the harsh moment when dreams have to become reality, when one no longer inhabits the when-I-grow-up world. I worry McCullough will hit puberty, get other interests, use his Social Security tour as a package to get into a good college, then encounter a dozen other kids who will campaign just as hard for freshman class president as he does. He'll lose to the kid from a school that sent the most kids to his particular university. And McCullough will say the heck with politics and wind up working for McKinsey.
I have mixed feelings about all this. I truly want bright young kids to have big opportunities. I also know that prodigies stuck in the limelight have a way of flaming out. The problem is that this winds up lending credence to the idea that prodigies flame out, and thus they shouldn't be given special opportunities when they are little.
But gifted kids need to be challenged regardless of what they'll accomplish later in life. That's a matter of simple fairness, not just investing in the future. I'm thrilled that McCullough has been able to indulge his love of presidential trivia. I wish more kids could dive so deeply into something they love. And I was thrilled that Viswanathan got a chance to write. But now any other 17-year-old coming to a publisher with a novel will be greeted with a cold stare. All because some packagers wanted to make a quick buck and pulled a novel out of this young woman quicker than she could actually write it herself, and because a publisher wanted to get a fresh new face out there so badly they didn't vet the manuscript.
I think we need less talk of prodigies, and more of meeting kids' needs. When all highly gifted kids have a chance to satisfy their passions and learn as quickly as they desire, then so-called "prodigies" will be less of media events. They'll just be kids doing what they love. Then, all talented 17-year-old writers will have access to grown-up writers who can help them improve their craft and perhaps try for publication if their pieces are good. The few whose schools or families figure out how to play the game won't be delivered to book publishers keen on making a splash. They won't be seen as newsworthy solely because of their age. And, as a result, we'll have fewer flame-outs.
A few months ago on this blog, I wrote about the dearth of literary prodigies. Mathematicians? Musicians? Sure. But you don't see a lot of teens and early 20-somethings cranking out great literature. I said this was partly due to young people not having experienced the full range of human emotions. But then I was happy to learn a 17-year-old Indian-American woman named Kaavya Viswanathan had written a funny, smart book called "How Opal Mehta Got Kissed, Got Wild and Got a Life" about the trials of getting into Harvard. She got a $500,000 3-book contract (the stuff we writers dream about, by the way).
Well, the story appears to be too good to true. Viswanathan lifted whole passages from another young adult novel, then claimed she'd merely "internalized" them from reading the other author's books so many times. Disturbing to me -- though not to others -- is that she shares the book's copyright with a book packager. Apparently, even the idea of this book was not entirely Viswanathan's own. A company helped shape it to be more marketable, and took a chunk of the payment. Normally, an author's agent and publisher help with this, so the fact that her publisher enlisted a book packager implies that they were really pushing to get a young author out there when perhaps Viswanathan's career would have benefitted from waiting (Or not. Many authors would kill to get on the Today show, even if it was because they were accused of plaigerizing).
Anyway, I've been reading about Viswanathan/Opal Mehta at the same time that I saw an Oprah show yesterday on "Little Geniuses." Some of the kids really were. A 16-year-old girl was able to compose piano pieces based on a random series of notes chosen by Oprah. Now, there are rules to that game which makes it less mind-blowing than on first glance, but it's still very impressive.
Others just seemed, well, as well-packaged as Opal Mehta wound up being to get into Harvard. A young man named Noah McCullough was trotted out as a potential presidential candidate in 2032. He's actually written a book (published by Random House) of presidential trivia. He gave pretty vague answers to the political questions, which had Oprah saying she'd vote for him (in reality, he did a political tour last year that was arranged by a Social Security privatization group -- something I support, but which I'm fairly sure Oprah does not -- but hey, why grill a kid on his actual positions?).
Anyway, he reminded me a lot of a kid I went to high school with. This kid had also calculuated the date he intended to become president, and when exactly he could run for Congress. He wore blazers and campaigned in the halls, etc. I Googled my old classmate for the fun of it the other day. He's a corporate lawyer in Illinois. Nothing wrong with that at all. But we've passed the date when he could become a Congressman. Indeed, he could be getting on people's radar screens to run for president in 2012. He isn't.
Saying you want to do something as a kid, and having people humor you or trot you out as the "face" of saving Social Security is one thing. Actually doing it as an adult is another. Likewise, young McCullough may want to run in 2032 as a 37-year-old, but if there's a popular Republican incumbent then, his party won't allow him to. This is the nature of looking at the harsh moment when dreams have to become reality, when one no longer inhabits the when-I-grow-up world. I worry McCullough will hit puberty, get other interests, use his Social Security tour as a package to get into a good college, then encounter a dozen other kids who will campaign just as hard for freshman class president as he does. He'll lose to the kid from a school that sent the most kids to his particular university. And McCullough will say the heck with politics and wind up working for McKinsey.
I have mixed feelings about all this. I truly want bright young kids to have big opportunities. I also know that prodigies stuck in the limelight have a way of flaming out. The problem is that this winds up lending credence to the idea that prodigies flame out, and thus they shouldn't be given special opportunities when they are little.
But gifted kids need to be challenged regardless of what they'll accomplish later in life. That's a matter of simple fairness, not just investing in the future. I'm thrilled that McCullough has been able to indulge his love of presidential trivia. I wish more kids could dive so deeply into something they love. And I was thrilled that Viswanathan got a chance to write. But now any other 17-year-old coming to a publisher with a novel will be greeted with a cold stare. All because some packagers wanted to make a quick buck and pulled a novel out of this young woman quicker than she could actually write it herself, and because a publisher wanted to get a fresh new face out there so badly they didn't vet the manuscript.
I think we need less talk of prodigies, and more of meeting kids' needs. When all highly gifted kids have a chance to satisfy their passions and learn as quickly as they desire, then so-called "prodigies" will be less of media events. They'll just be kids doing what they love. Then, all talented 17-year-old writers will have access to grown-up writers who can help them improve their craft and perhaps try for publication if their pieces are good. The few whose schools or families figure out how to play the game won't be delivered to book publishers keen on making a splash. They won't be seen as newsworthy solely because of their age. And, as a result, we'll have fewer flame-outs.
Tuesday, April 25, 2006
Talent Searches
Gifted middle school students around the country took the SAT or ACT this winter as part of "talent searches" run by universities including Duke, Northwestern and Johns Hopkins. Most have gotten their results, and some are now signing up for summer programs offered through these universities (for instance, I read the tale of two Texas students who will be attending summer programs on scholarship, here.)
I'm glad these talent searches and summer programs exist. I participated in the Midwest Talent Search in 7th and 8th grade. My school system had a little ceremony called "Achievers All" (we wouldn't want to suggest that not all students achieve, would we?) that honored all talent search participants and others who had good middle school attendance records, etc. I went to academic summer camps at Northwestern because of my SAT scores. It's safe to say the three weeks I spent at Northwestern University each of those summers were the absolute highlight of those years. But then what? Most students who are "identified" as highly gifted through high scores on out-of-level tests go right back into their age-grade level classes. Indeed, I wrote a piece for USA Today three years ago called SAT Talent Searches Lead Nowhere for Many with stories from some of these kids. When information isn't used, it's pretty much useless. Even if you do get a small trophy from the school for your efforts.
So what should happen? Parents and the talent searches need to push schools to have a policy that a high score on an out-of-level test triggers an individual education plan meeting. In an ideal world, a representative from the talent search would also be part of that meeting, to offer ideas for accommodations (many schools and parents aren't aware of all the options).
Schools love talent searches -- you get to advertise about your high scorers -- so I'd love to see the searches play hard ball. If you do nothing with the scores, we cut your school from the program. Any kid, after all, can sign up for the SAT if he wants, on his own. Families can participate even if schools are blacklisted. But if searches made known a list of schools unwilling to accommodate children, that could shake things up a bit.
Gifted middle school students around the country took the SAT or ACT this winter as part of "talent searches" run by universities including Duke, Northwestern and Johns Hopkins. Most have gotten their results, and some are now signing up for summer programs offered through these universities (for instance, I read the tale of two Texas students who will be attending summer programs on scholarship, here.)
I'm glad these talent searches and summer programs exist. I participated in the Midwest Talent Search in 7th and 8th grade. My school system had a little ceremony called "Achievers All" (we wouldn't want to suggest that not all students achieve, would we?) that honored all talent search participants and others who had good middle school attendance records, etc. I went to academic summer camps at Northwestern because of my SAT scores. It's safe to say the three weeks I spent at Northwestern University each of those summers were the absolute highlight of those years. But then what? Most students who are "identified" as highly gifted through high scores on out-of-level tests go right back into their age-grade level classes. Indeed, I wrote a piece for USA Today three years ago called SAT Talent Searches Lead Nowhere for Many with stories from some of these kids. When information isn't used, it's pretty much useless. Even if you do get a small trophy from the school for your efforts.
So what should happen? Parents and the talent searches need to push schools to have a policy that a high score on an out-of-level test triggers an individual education plan meeting. In an ideal world, a representative from the talent search would also be part of that meeting, to offer ideas for accommodations (many schools and parents aren't aware of all the options).
Schools love talent searches -- you get to advertise about your high scorers -- so I'd love to see the searches play hard ball. If you do nothing with the scores, we cut your school from the program. Any kid, after all, can sign up for the SAT if he wants, on his own. Families can participate even if schools are blacklisted. But if searches made known a list of schools unwilling to accommodate children, that could shake things up a bit.
Thursday, April 20, 2006
Spelling Bees
The new movie Akeelah and the Bee, about a girl from LA who wants to compete in the National Spelling Bee, is sparking some renewed interest in these contests. The National Spelling Bee has been a bit of a draw for curiosity-seekers since Rebecca Sealfon shouted out "euonym" to win it in 1997. Indeed, small children who can spell big words are always a TV draw, showing up on Jay Leno, Oprah, etc.
My one run at spelling bee glory was in 4th grade, when I was a runner-up in the 4th (or possibly 5th) grade Washington Elementary School Spelling Bee in Raleigh, NC. I lost when I spelled "attorney" wrong (little knowing that 15 years later I'd marry one). I blame my lapse on the fact that I studied the whole spelling list we'd been given, A-Z, not realizing that the bored teacher tasked with runnning the thing would only ask words from the A section. Turns out I should have concentrated my cramming there.
But I digress. My mixed feelings about spelling bees come not from my own lack of ability to spell, but because they're mostly about memorization. Rebecca Sealfon talks about the memorizing regimen she used in this article from the Nassau Weekly (a Princeton paper I used to write for, here. (Sealfon graduated in 2005 with a biology degree, and also studied creative writing). While Sealfon is very intelligent, broadly, the ability to memorize is not the same thing as intelligence. Intelligence involves piecing bits of information together, discerning patterns, and solving problems. There is some element of this in spelling bees ("eu" is Latin root for "true," "-onym" for name; so if you were told or knew the word meant a well-suited name, you could figure this out). But generally, students who do well in spelling bees have been drilling words from the dictionary into their heads. English is not a language well-suited to discerning patterns and piecing together spellings based on that information.
There is nothing wrong, per se, with a contest that rewards memorization. Nor is there anything wrong with kids devoting themselves to a goal and training hard for it. Kids do this all the time in rather useless sports; the fact that spelling is a rather useless skill these days shouldn't detract from the hard work winners like Sealfon put in to their victories.
The problem is that the population-at-large then thinks the ability to memorize is what being bright is about. Very bright toddlers often memorize things as they try to learn about their world. But being able to recite the long names of dinosaurs does a lot less for you as you get older. The kids on the Leno show may pursue that interest in paleontology when they grow up, but then being "good" at dinosaurs will mean discerning patterns from random bones, recalling links to other species found nearby, and using all the available research tools to learn more about the prehistoric world. I'd love to see a contest for kids that tapped all these skills. Then I'd love to see it get as much press as the National Spelling Bee. But "a-ha" moments don't necessarily make for good television. Or movies. So we get dramatic spelling moments, where the answer is clear-cut. Too bad learning in general doesn't work that way.
The new movie Akeelah and the Bee, about a girl from LA who wants to compete in the National Spelling Bee, is sparking some renewed interest in these contests. The National Spelling Bee has been a bit of a draw for curiosity-seekers since Rebecca Sealfon shouted out "euonym" to win it in 1997. Indeed, small children who can spell big words are always a TV draw, showing up on Jay Leno, Oprah, etc.
My one run at spelling bee glory was in 4th grade, when I was a runner-up in the 4th (or possibly 5th) grade Washington Elementary School Spelling Bee in Raleigh, NC. I lost when I spelled "attorney" wrong (little knowing that 15 years later I'd marry one). I blame my lapse on the fact that I studied the whole spelling list we'd been given, A-Z, not realizing that the bored teacher tasked with runnning the thing would only ask words from the A section. Turns out I should have concentrated my cramming there.
But I digress. My mixed feelings about spelling bees come not from my own lack of ability to spell, but because they're mostly about memorization. Rebecca Sealfon talks about the memorizing regimen she used in this article from the Nassau Weekly (a Princeton paper I used to write for, here. (Sealfon graduated in 2005 with a biology degree, and also studied creative writing). While Sealfon is very intelligent, broadly, the ability to memorize is not the same thing as intelligence. Intelligence involves piecing bits of information together, discerning patterns, and solving problems. There is some element of this in spelling bees ("eu" is Latin root for "true," "-onym" for name; so if you were told or knew the word meant a well-suited name, you could figure this out). But generally, students who do well in spelling bees have been drilling words from the dictionary into their heads. English is not a language well-suited to discerning patterns and piecing together spellings based on that information.
There is nothing wrong, per se, with a contest that rewards memorization. Nor is there anything wrong with kids devoting themselves to a goal and training hard for it. Kids do this all the time in rather useless sports; the fact that spelling is a rather useless skill these days shouldn't detract from the hard work winners like Sealfon put in to their victories.
The problem is that the population-at-large then thinks the ability to memorize is what being bright is about. Very bright toddlers often memorize things as they try to learn about their world. But being able to recite the long names of dinosaurs does a lot less for you as you get older. The kids on the Leno show may pursue that interest in paleontology when they grow up, but then being "good" at dinosaurs will mean discerning patterns from random bones, recalling links to other species found nearby, and using all the available research tools to learn more about the prehistoric world. I'd love to see a contest for kids that tapped all these skills. Then I'd love to see it get as much press as the National Spelling Bee. But "a-ha" moments don't necessarily make for good television. Or movies. So we get dramatic spelling moments, where the answer is clear-cut. Too bad learning in general doesn't work that way.
Tuesday, April 18, 2006
Izzy the Impatient
So I was in the children's section of Borders last night looking for a book I'm mentioning in Grindhopping (the picture book is "Big Sister, Little Sister," by LeUyen Pham, who's a great young illustrator if anyone's looking for kids' picture books). While there, I was reminded of something. It's quite difficult to find good kids' books for very bright young kids. This is particularly true for 6- or 7-year-olds who are reading at an adult level. Most adult books have more adult themes than 6- or 7-year-olds can handle. So what do you do? The Harry Potter books are wonderful in this regard, as are Madeleine L'Engle and others whose work can be enjoyed by young and old alike. But even Harry Potter and Lloyd Alexander's Chronicles of Prydain can be a little dark at times for six-year-olds who have nightmares. I'm curious what books parents have found to be best for these adult-level readers who aren't quite adults.
The other thought I had while there is that the morality tales you see in children's literature are sometimes too cut and dried. Remembering the "Mr. Man" books from my own childhood, I had a brainstorm. I'd love to see a kids' picture book that stated that impatience is not always a bad thing. Gifted young kids are impatient to learn!
I'm thinking a little girl named Izzy could star in this role. She'd be 3. She'd do things like call out words on signs and spell words when people say them. Someone would say "how many is this?" holding up fingers in the supermarket line, and she'd tell them "nine fingers -- that's three threes." Some astonished people would tell her "Slow down little one!" Maybe even well-meaning people like the mailman, neighbors, etc. She's a little confused by this. What did she do wrong?
The plot thickens. She could also have a garden she works on with her parents in the back yard. She gets impatient waiting for the plants to come up and so digs them out. Her mom or dad will then say that sometimes it's not OK to be impatient. It certainly doesn't help the plants. But with learning, sometimes it is OK. There's a lot to learn in this world, and there's no reason to slow down if you don't want to.
Of course, the third thing I observed in Borders is that half the kids' books are now "written" by celebrities, as it's one of the few ways to be sure a book will stand out in the glut of picture books. So I guess I'd have to get Madonna to illustrate Izzy the Impatient if I was going to have any hopes of it going anywhere. :)
So I was in the children's section of Borders last night looking for a book I'm mentioning in Grindhopping (the picture book is "Big Sister, Little Sister," by LeUyen Pham, who's a great young illustrator if anyone's looking for kids' picture books). While there, I was reminded of something. It's quite difficult to find good kids' books for very bright young kids. This is particularly true for 6- or 7-year-olds who are reading at an adult level. Most adult books have more adult themes than 6- or 7-year-olds can handle. So what do you do? The Harry Potter books are wonderful in this regard, as are Madeleine L'Engle and others whose work can be enjoyed by young and old alike. But even Harry Potter and Lloyd Alexander's Chronicles of Prydain can be a little dark at times for six-year-olds who have nightmares. I'm curious what books parents have found to be best for these adult-level readers who aren't quite adults.
The other thought I had while there is that the morality tales you see in children's literature are sometimes too cut and dried. Remembering the "Mr. Man" books from my own childhood, I had a brainstorm. I'd love to see a kids' picture book that stated that impatience is not always a bad thing. Gifted young kids are impatient to learn!
I'm thinking a little girl named Izzy could star in this role. She'd be 3. She'd do things like call out words on signs and spell words when people say them. Someone would say "how many is this?" holding up fingers in the supermarket line, and she'd tell them "nine fingers -- that's three threes." Some astonished people would tell her "Slow down little one!" Maybe even well-meaning people like the mailman, neighbors, etc. She's a little confused by this. What did she do wrong?
The plot thickens. She could also have a garden she works on with her parents in the back yard. She gets impatient waiting for the plants to come up and so digs them out. Her mom or dad will then say that sometimes it's not OK to be impatient. It certainly doesn't help the plants. But with learning, sometimes it is OK. There's a lot to learn in this world, and there's no reason to slow down if you don't want to.
Of course, the third thing I observed in Borders is that half the kids' books are now "written" by celebrities, as it's one of the few ways to be sure a book will stand out in the glut of picture books. So I guess I'd have to get Madonna to illustrate Izzy the Impatient if I was going to have any hopes of it going anywhere. :)
Monday, April 17, 2006
Another Early College Story
Following on the Mary Baldwin post, here's a story of a youngster going to an A-list college at an early age. Joe Fang, a senior at North Gwinnett High School in Georgia, is most likely on his way to MIT next fall. He's also 15 years old. You can read his profile in the Gwinnett Daily Post, here .
I found a few absolutely refreshing statements in this article. First, Joe's acceleration began when an elementary school teacher noticed he was very bright, and decided to test him to see if he could take more advanced classes. “She realized that I had a special talent in math,” Joe said. “I did really well, so they let me keep going.” Did I read that right? "They let me keep going..." He was simply allowed to work at his own pace. No one got particularly angst-ridden about it. What a contrast between this situation and the district in Kentucky I wrote about recently that sent a family a bill for having the audacity to put their 5-year-old daughter in first grade!
Second, what about the "problem" of being much younger than his classmates? Apparently Joe didn't get too stressed out about that either. “They knew I was younger, and a lot of them already knew me,” Joe said of his classmates. “I really was not scared at all because I was already used to taking classes with older kids.”
I'm glad Joe had an understanding school system that saw no reason to hold him back when he was capable of doing more advanced work. The article notes that mom and dad are a little worried about sending him so far away for college, but my guess is that he'll do OK. Hopefully there will be a follow up article letting us know, so we can add this story to the "Lives of Purpose" collection from Mary Baldwin.
Following on the Mary Baldwin post, here's a story of a youngster going to an A-list college at an early age. Joe Fang, a senior at North Gwinnett High School in Georgia, is most likely on his way to MIT next fall. He's also 15 years old. You can read his profile in the Gwinnett Daily Post, here .
I found a few absolutely refreshing statements in this article. First, Joe's acceleration began when an elementary school teacher noticed he was very bright, and decided to test him to see if he could take more advanced classes. “She realized that I had a special talent in math,” Joe said. “I did really well, so they let me keep going.” Did I read that right? "They let me keep going..." He was simply allowed to work at his own pace. No one got particularly angst-ridden about it. What a contrast between this situation and the district in Kentucky I wrote about recently that sent a family a bill for having the audacity to put their 5-year-old daughter in first grade!
Second, what about the "problem" of being much younger than his classmates? Apparently Joe didn't get too stressed out about that either. “They knew I was younger, and a lot of them already knew me,” Joe said of his classmates. “I really was not scared at all because I was already used to taking classes with older kids.”
I'm glad Joe had an understanding school system that saw no reason to hold him back when he was capable of doing more advanced work. The article notes that mom and dad are a little worried about sending him so far away for college, but my guess is that he'll do OK. Hopefully there will be a follow up article letting us know, so we can add this story to the "Lives of Purpose" collection from Mary Baldwin.
Friday, April 14, 2006
A Gifted Group Reunites
Mary Baldwin College's Program for the Exceptionally Gifted (PEG) is the only all-women's residential college program for teenage girls in the US. Basically, students skip all of high school and enroll in PEG after (usually) their 8th grade year.
The program has now been around for about 20 years. The school staged a reunion recently, which was covered in the Staunton, VA News Leader in an article by Christina Murphy.
The first young women to attend PEG are now in their 30's. They have entered a variety of professions in addition to raising families. A book about them called "Lives of Purpose" is forthcoming (note to the researchers whose findings will be presented in the book: Are you still looking for a writer?)
Anyway, I find the subject fascinating. These young women, like the young people discussed in the Dropout Nation post, decided not to attend high school for whatever reason. Maybe they were ready for a new challenge. Maybe they were bored, or maybe they didn't fit in well at regular high schools. Skipping high school is almost sacrilege in this country that worships Friday night football games, proms and the like. In a fractured culture, high school is the closest thing to unity we've got. These girls sailed over it.
Like the USA Today All-Star academic teams, there's a word of caution. I'm sure we'll discover as we read "Lives of Purpose" that we haven't heard of any of the first cohorts of PEG women. That's the problem with justifying such programs by claiming they'll produce the leaders of the future who will cure cancer and write the Great American novel, or what have you. Very few people do these things. The chances that the "very few" segment overlaps with the PEG segment of individuals is low.
But, these women have had fairly happy, successful lives. That fact, in and of itself, indicates that high school is not always necessary. Something to think about.
Mary Baldwin College's Program for the Exceptionally Gifted (PEG) is the only all-women's residential college program for teenage girls in the US. Basically, students skip all of high school and enroll in PEG after (usually) their 8th grade year.
The program has now been around for about 20 years. The school staged a reunion recently, which was covered in the Staunton, VA News Leader in an article by Christina Murphy.
The first young women to attend PEG are now in their 30's. They have entered a variety of professions in addition to raising families. A book about them called "Lives of Purpose" is forthcoming (note to the researchers whose findings will be presented in the book: Are you still looking for a writer?)
Anyway, I find the subject fascinating. These young women, like the young people discussed in the Dropout Nation post, decided not to attend high school for whatever reason. Maybe they were ready for a new challenge. Maybe they were bored, or maybe they didn't fit in well at regular high schools. Skipping high school is almost sacrilege in this country that worships Friday night football games, proms and the like. In a fractured culture, high school is the closest thing to unity we've got. These girls sailed over it.
Like the USA Today All-Star academic teams, there's a word of caution. I'm sure we'll discover as we read "Lives of Purpose" that we haven't heard of any of the first cohorts of PEG women. That's the problem with justifying such programs by claiming they'll produce the leaders of the future who will cure cancer and write the Great American novel, or what have you. Very few people do these things. The chances that the "very few" segment overlaps with the PEG segment of individuals is low.
But, these women have had fairly happy, successful lives. That fact, in and of itself, indicates that high school is not always necessary. Something to think about.
Wednesday, April 12, 2006
Dropout Nation (Warning: this is a long post…)
Time magazine has a cover story this week called “Dropout Nation,” which talks about this national problem through the lens of one small town known as Shelbyville, Indiana. The magazine did a tie-in on the piece with the Oprah Winfrey show. That means I got a double dose of Dropout Nation and Shelbyville during my daily 4pm jog on the treadmill in front of the TV yesterday.
Anyway, all these photos and camera shots of the bleak Indiana landscape are giving me one main thought. I am so grateful that I am no longer in middle or high school. Time mentions a scene from the cafeteria where “like high schoolers everywhere, they have arranged themselves by type: jocks, preps, cheerleaders, dorks, punks and gamers, all with tables of their own.”
One young woman in the story, Susan, “an honors student her freshman year,” rebels against the scene. “The social cauldron of high school weighed on her. She didn’t get along with the cheerleaders on the yearbook staff. And her avid interest in Stephen King novels and TV shows about forensics earned her a false reputation, she says, as a glum goth girl. So she started ditching class, barreling through the Indiana countryside alone in her Dodge Neon, blasting her favorite song, The Ghost of You, by My Chemical Romance … For her, sitting in a classroom biting her tongue and waiting to graduate when college wasn’t necessarily in her future was a form of inaction. Working, saving money, starting her adult life – that was taking the initiative.”
Oh dear. Substitute Alanis Morissette for the band Susan likes and you could get a good snapshot of my feelings during early adolescence. Mavis Leno (wife of Jay) has a great quote I found once that goes something like “I could be happy my whole life knowing I will never have to live through middle school again.” Beautiful, brilliant Mavis! If she hated it, what hope is there for the rest of us? The one difference between Susan and me is that I was pretty sure college would be better. I also transferred for my last two years of high school to the Indiana Academy, a school for gifted students, that made me stretch my mind and discover that one’s teen years didn’t have to be a complete waste of time.
But back to Dropout Nation. The Time article and Oprah show treatment made it clear that the bleakness of the Indiana landscape is echoed in the bleakness of a lot of high school kids’ lives. The nation’s high drop-out rate (about 1 in 3 kids who start high school won’t finish in 4-5 years) is the result.
Let’s get one bad idea out of the way. The bulk of kids who drop out do not do so because high school is too tough. Time reports that 88% of dropouts received passing grades. “Asked to name the reasons they had left school, more respondents named boredom than struggles with course work.” Indeed, in Genius Denied, the Davidsons and I report that studies find about 20% of high school dropouts actually test in the gifted
range.
Kids drop out because they find that high school is neither challenging nor relevant. Time dances around a response to this, but I’d wager that for the bulk of American kids, these dropouts are absolutely right.
First, the lack-of-challenge part: Oprah did one heart-wrenching segment on a young woman who was the valedictorian of her Tennessee high school. She went to a state university, and floundered in her classes. She was bright but her school demanded little of her to earn those top grades. The cameras also followed a group of bright youngsters from a Chicago school as they toured well-to-do Naperville, Illinois’s high school. One young woman sat in on a trigonometry class and said she thought the teacher was speaking a different language.
The show didn’t dwell long on these issues. It’s easier to make a big deal about the fact that Naperville had a nicer weight room than the Chicago school. But physical facilities are one thing. The lack of challenge to these kids’ brains is the real rotting that’s going on. It wasn’t until I attended the Indiana Academy that I discovered what it was like to study for a test and work hard for my grades. About 40% of college kids require remedial classes to get up to standard. Clearly, a big chunk of young people aren’t pushing their brains – or having them pushed.
Second, high schools were designed for the industrial economy. That economy has almost disappeared. Few people move with a whistle now, but high school students still change classes with a bell. High school kids learn things in discrete units called subjects, just as factory workers do discrete tasks. But my work isn’t divided into subjects. The other day, I was writing a book chapter that delved into calculus (briefly). Combining language arts and math – is that even allowed?
Furthermore, one of the reasons employers have always valued a high school diploma over a GED is that a high school diploma shows you’ll stick with the system. You’ll get up every morning and go somewhere you’re supposed to, and work with the people you’re assigned to, whether you like it or not.
Even that work format is changing. I got up every morning and went somewhere I was supposed to for one year out of college. Then I decided to strike out on my own. This morning I got up at 6:30 am, but yesterday morning I didn’t haul myself out of bed until 9:30am. I just got out of my pajamas a few minutes ago (at 10:30 am EST). If I want to go watch TV, I can, or make myself a snack. All that matters is that the work gets done. True, most workers don’t have this kind of freedom, but there are 10.3 million independent contractors in the US, and there are about 18 million “non-employer businesses” (meaning firms owned, run and operated by one person). These numbers have skyrocketed in recent years. We live how we want for the most part. There is absolutely nothing in the high school curriculum or format that would prepare you for a free agent life, or even the corporate life of most knowledge workers.
I don’t know how to change that. As I’ve said in my other blog posts, attempts to make school more flexible tend to wind up lowering standards, because most people work hardest for external rewards. Homeschooling comes closest to the kind of work many knowledge workers will do with their lives, but it’s hardly a large scale solution. We need more brilliant teachers, more high standards, more links between the workplace and school. We need more rigorous independent projects, more chances to audit community college courses, and more individualized curriculum. I’ll explore some more ideas in upcoming blog posts.
But what’s saddest is that the kids who most realize the irrelevance and lack of challenge in high school are the ones who pay the highest price because of that realization. If you lack a high school diploma, you lose most meaningful job opportunities, and you have very little chance of ever going to college. Because of this, some states are raising the age at which you’re allowed to drop out of high school. It’s an easy solution – but changing the irrelevance and lack of challenge would go a lot farther to restoring America’s competitiveness.
Time magazine has a cover story this week called “Dropout Nation,” which talks about this national problem through the lens of one small town known as Shelbyville, Indiana. The magazine did a tie-in on the piece with the Oprah Winfrey show. That means I got a double dose of Dropout Nation and Shelbyville during my daily 4pm jog on the treadmill in front of the TV yesterday.
Anyway, all these photos and camera shots of the bleak Indiana landscape are giving me one main thought. I am so grateful that I am no longer in middle or high school. Time mentions a scene from the cafeteria where “like high schoolers everywhere, they have arranged themselves by type: jocks, preps, cheerleaders, dorks, punks and gamers, all with tables of their own.”
One young woman in the story, Susan, “an honors student her freshman year,” rebels against the scene. “The social cauldron of high school weighed on her. She didn’t get along with the cheerleaders on the yearbook staff. And her avid interest in Stephen King novels and TV shows about forensics earned her a false reputation, she says, as a glum goth girl. So she started ditching class, barreling through the Indiana countryside alone in her Dodge Neon, blasting her favorite song, The Ghost of You, by My Chemical Romance … For her, sitting in a classroom biting her tongue and waiting to graduate when college wasn’t necessarily in her future was a form of inaction. Working, saving money, starting her adult life – that was taking the initiative.”
Oh dear. Substitute Alanis Morissette for the band Susan likes and you could get a good snapshot of my feelings during early adolescence. Mavis Leno (wife of Jay) has a great quote I found once that goes something like “I could be happy my whole life knowing I will never have to live through middle school again.” Beautiful, brilliant Mavis! If she hated it, what hope is there for the rest of us? The one difference between Susan and me is that I was pretty sure college would be better. I also transferred for my last two years of high school to the Indiana Academy, a school for gifted students, that made me stretch my mind and discover that one’s teen years didn’t have to be a complete waste of time.
But back to Dropout Nation. The Time article and Oprah show treatment made it clear that the bleakness of the Indiana landscape is echoed in the bleakness of a lot of high school kids’ lives. The nation’s high drop-out rate (about 1 in 3 kids who start high school won’t finish in 4-5 years) is the result.
Let’s get one bad idea out of the way. The bulk of kids who drop out do not do so because high school is too tough. Time reports that 88% of dropouts received passing grades. “Asked to name the reasons they had left school, more respondents named boredom than struggles with course work.” Indeed, in Genius Denied, the Davidsons and I report that studies find about 20% of high school dropouts actually test in the gifted
range.
Kids drop out because they find that high school is neither challenging nor relevant. Time dances around a response to this, but I’d wager that for the bulk of American kids, these dropouts are absolutely right.
First, the lack-of-challenge part: Oprah did one heart-wrenching segment on a young woman who was the valedictorian of her Tennessee high school. She went to a state university, and floundered in her classes. She was bright but her school demanded little of her to earn those top grades. The cameras also followed a group of bright youngsters from a Chicago school as they toured well-to-do Naperville, Illinois’s high school. One young woman sat in on a trigonometry class and said she thought the teacher was speaking a different language.
The show didn’t dwell long on these issues. It’s easier to make a big deal about the fact that Naperville had a nicer weight room than the Chicago school. But physical facilities are one thing. The lack of challenge to these kids’ brains is the real rotting that’s going on. It wasn’t until I attended the Indiana Academy that I discovered what it was like to study for a test and work hard for my grades. About 40% of college kids require remedial classes to get up to standard. Clearly, a big chunk of young people aren’t pushing their brains – or having them pushed.
Second, high schools were designed for the industrial economy. That economy has almost disappeared. Few people move with a whistle now, but high school students still change classes with a bell. High school kids learn things in discrete units called subjects, just as factory workers do discrete tasks. But my work isn’t divided into subjects. The other day, I was writing a book chapter that delved into calculus (briefly). Combining language arts and math – is that even allowed?
Furthermore, one of the reasons employers have always valued a high school diploma over a GED is that a high school diploma shows you’ll stick with the system. You’ll get up every morning and go somewhere you’re supposed to, and work with the people you’re assigned to, whether you like it or not.
Even that work format is changing. I got up every morning and went somewhere I was supposed to for one year out of college. Then I decided to strike out on my own. This morning I got up at 6:30 am, but yesterday morning I didn’t haul myself out of bed until 9:30am. I just got out of my pajamas a few minutes ago (at 10:30 am EST). If I want to go watch TV, I can, or make myself a snack. All that matters is that the work gets done. True, most workers don’t have this kind of freedom, but there are 10.3 million independent contractors in the US, and there are about 18 million “non-employer businesses” (meaning firms owned, run and operated by one person). These numbers have skyrocketed in recent years. We live how we want for the most part. There is absolutely nothing in the high school curriculum or format that would prepare you for a free agent life, or even the corporate life of most knowledge workers.
I don’t know how to change that. As I’ve said in my other blog posts, attempts to make school more flexible tend to wind up lowering standards, because most people work hardest for external rewards. Homeschooling comes closest to the kind of work many knowledge workers will do with their lives, but it’s hardly a large scale solution. We need more brilliant teachers, more high standards, more links between the workplace and school. We need more rigorous independent projects, more chances to audit community college courses, and more individualized curriculum. I’ll explore some more ideas in upcoming blog posts.
But what’s saddest is that the kids who most realize the irrelevance and lack of challenge in high school are the ones who pay the highest price because of that realization. If you lack a high school diploma, you lose most meaningful job opportunities, and you have very little chance of ever going to college. Because of this, some states are raising the age at which you’re allowed to drop out of high school. It’s an easy solution – but changing the irrelevance and lack of challenge would go a lot farther to restoring America’s competitiveness.
Monday, April 10, 2006
NJ Governor's School Gone... For Lack of $1.92 Million
Unless something changes soon, six hundred bright New Jersey high school juniors will soon receive a rather ominous letter. It will inform them that, thanks for all the work you've done applying for Governor's School -- a prestigious, free summer program for the state's top students -- but the funds were cut retroactively from the 2006 budget. Governor's School no longer exists. Find other plans for the summer.
New Jersey, like many states, has been having budget trouble of late, and has been trying to figure out which programs to cut. Governor's School wound up landing on the chopping block. What's saddest, though, is that the $1.92 million this program cost was the only state funding for gifted education in New Jersey. Local school districts offer programs if they have the cash. Not surprisingly, well-to-do districts are more likely to have the cash than poor ones. Well-to-do students can also afford to attend summer programs for the gifted at various universities such as Johns Hopkins and Harvard. New Jersey just cut one of the only programs that reached gifted kids who weren't well-to-do.
Philadelphia Inquirer columnist Jonathan Last has an op-ed about the cuts in Sunday's paper called "Gifted Students Shortchanged."
Based on some previous discussions on this blog, I don't like the idea of pitting children against children, but Last does point out that the education cuts were not shared equally. Some programs, such as special education, gained funding. New Jersey will spend $1.6 billion on special education next year. No doubt those funds will do a lot of good for special needs kids. But it is sad that the state could find $1.6 billion for special education and absolutely nothing for gifted education. Guess bright kids without extra income are on their own.
Unless something changes soon, six hundred bright New Jersey high school juniors will soon receive a rather ominous letter. It will inform them that, thanks for all the work you've done applying for Governor's School -- a prestigious, free summer program for the state's top students -- but the funds were cut retroactively from the 2006 budget. Governor's School no longer exists. Find other plans for the summer.
New Jersey, like many states, has been having budget trouble of late, and has been trying to figure out which programs to cut. Governor's School wound up landing on the chopping block. What's saddest, though, is that the $1.92 million this program cost was the only state funding for gifted education in New Jersey. Local school districts offer programs if they have the cash. Not surprisingly, well-to-do districts are more likely to have the cash than poor ones. Well-to-do students can also afford to attend summer programs for the gifted at various universities such as Johns Hopkins and Harvard. New Jersey just cut one of the only programs that reached gifted kids who weren't well-to-do.
Philadelphia Inquirer columnist Jonathan Last has an op-ed about the cuts in Sunday's paper called "Gifted Students Shortchanged."
Based on some previous discussions on this blog, I don't like the idea of pitting children against children, but Last does point out that the education cuts were not shared equally. Some programs, such as special education, gained funding. New Jersey will spend $1.6 billion on special education next year. No doubt those funds will do a lot of good for special needs kids. But it is sad that the state could find $1.6 billion for special education and absolutely nothing for gifted education. Guess bright kids without extra income are on their own.
Friday, April 07, 2006
Declining Field Trips and NCLB?
To the list of things people are blaming on No Child Left Behind, add field trips. Reporter Michael Winerip had an interesting article in Wednesday's New York Times called "No Child Left Behind? Ask the Gifted." It's a somewhat disjointed piece that seems mostly about this cool trip one gifted class got to take to Ellis Island, coupled with a few paragraphs on the decline of gifted education, coupled with another on the decline of field trips. I'm happy the class got to take their field trip and we talk about declining gifted education a lot, so I'll concentrate on the stats on the field trip's decline.
According to Winerip, "Peter O'Connell, who runs the educational program at the national park in Lowell, Mass., just completed a survey of school visits to 10 history museums in New England, including Old Sturbridge Village and Plimoth Plantation. He found a 20 percent decline in student visits in the last few years. 'Schools aren't devoting as much time to history, especially urban districts,' Dr. O'Connell said."
Now there's plenty not to like about NCLB, but after a while it gets a little tedious to have everything blamed on it. I suspect that with field trips, schools are using NCLB as an excuse, not an actual reason. The teacher profiled in Winerip's piece is an excellent, high-energy teacher. She looks forward to taking her class to Ellis Island every year. Many teachers are not so excited about these things. I had plenty of social studies and history teachers who managed to never leave the school building, long before NCLB. Organizing kids and sack lunches and parental chaperones and permission slips is work. Why take on more work if there's a ready excuse not to?
Actually, the more I think about it, I suspect some local districts that have cut funding for gifted education and have blamed NCLB are following the same line of reasoning. Among a certain set of educators trained in false notions of equality, gifted education is a constant thorn in the side. If there's an available reason to get rid of it -- a big, unpopular reason decreed by far-away lawmakers you can do nothing about -- why not seize it?
To the list of things people are blaming on No Child Left Behind, add field trips. Reporter Michael Winerip had an interesting article in Wednesday's New York Times called "No Child Left Behind? Ask the Gifted." It's a somewhat disjointed piece that seems mostly about this cool trip one gifted class got to take to Ellis Island, coupled with a few paragraphs on the decline of gifted education, coupled with another on the decline of field trips. I'm happy the class got to take their field trip and we talk about declining gifted education a lot, so I'll concentrate on the stats on the field trip's decline.
According to Winerip, "Peter O'Connell, who runs the educational program at the national park in Lowell, Mass., just completed a survey of school visits to 10 history museums in New England, including Old Sturbridge Village and Plimoth Plantation. He found a 20 percent decline in student visits in the last few years. 'Schools aren't devoting as much time to history, especially urban districts,' Dr. O'Connell said."
Now there's plenty not to like about NCLB, but after a while it gets a little tedious to have everything blamed on it. I suspect that with field trips, schools are using NCLB as an excuse, not an actual reason. The teacher profiled in Winerip's piece is an excellent, high-energy teacher. She looks forward to taking her class to Ellis Island every year. Many teachers are not so excited about these things. I had plenty of social studies and history teachers who managed to never leave the school building, long before NCLB. Organizing kids and sack lunches and parental chaperones and permission slips is work. Why take on more work if there's a ready excuse not to?
Actually, the more I think about it, I suspect some local districts that have cut funding for gifted education and have blamed NCLB are following the same line of reasoning. Among a certain set of educators trained in false notions of equality, gifted education is a constant thorn in the side. If there's an available reason to get rid of it -- a big, unpopular reason decreed by far-away lawmakers you can do nothing about -- why not seize it?
Wednesday, April 05, 2006
Accelerating for Better Careers
A recent op-ed in the Coloradoan pointed out an interesting little nugget from Louis Terman's longitudinal research following children with high IQs. Apparently, children who graduated from high school at age 15 had "superior careers" to those who graduated at 17. The children had similar IQs. Starting your career earlier, it turns out, increases the chances you'll do great things with it (you can read the piece, which just covers acceleration in general, here).
I find this fascinating given all the articles of late about "Adultolescents," or "Twixters" (to use Time's phrase) or "Rejuveniles" to use the title of a new book by Christopher Noxon coming out in June. It's taking kids in general a lot longer to grow up these days. Gifted young people are taking even longer, given that many of them pursue advanced degrees after college. I suspect this extended adolescence is the reason so few grown-up gifted kids in the SMPY co-hort had had children by age 35. I read one study on English PhDs from the Modern Language Association that found 95% of students took more than 5 years to obtain their PhDs. In the best case scenario, these young people are 27 by the time they finish school and start working, and in normal scenarios, they're a lot older ...
...unless they're accelerated. A kid who graduated from high school at 15 could be done with college at 19 and pursuing advanced studies in the field of his choosing while most people are still choosing majors (and figuring out that "Beast" is a nickname for Milwaukee's Best). Sure there's a lot of fun stuff you experience by being the normal college age during college, but there's a lot of time-wasting stuff too. Gifted kids are often deeply interested in the fields in which their talents lie. Forcing them to spend 18 years pursuing generalist knowledge they could compact into far fewer years keeps them from devoting time to their passions.
As people have pointed out in other threads on this blog, if you devote more time to your passion, you often become very good at it. So no wonder accelerated kids do better in their careers. I don't know if it's an argument that would persuade a reluctant school, but it's worth a shot.
A recent op-ed in the Coloradoan pointed out an interesting little nugget from Louis Terman's longitudinal research following children with high IQs. Apparently, children who graduated from high school at age 15 had "superior careers" to those who graduated at 17. The children had similar IQs. Starting your career earlier, it turns out, increases the chances you'll do great things with it (you can read the piece, which just covers acceleration in general, here).
I find this fascinating given all the articles of late about "Adultolescents," or "Twixters" (to use Time's phrase) or "Rejuveniles" to use the title of a new book by Christopher Noxon coming out in June. It's taking kids in general a lot longer to grow up these days. Gifted young people are taking even longer, given that many of them pursue advanced degrees after college. I suspect this extended adolescence is the reason so few grown-up gifted kids in the SMPY co-hort had had children by age 35. I read one study on English PhDs from the Modern Language Association that found 95% of students took more than 5 years to obtain their PhDs. In the best case scenario, these young people are 27 by the time they finish school and start working, and in normal scenarios, they're a lot older ...
...unless they're accelerated. A kid who graduated from high school at 15 could be done with college at 19 and pursuing advanced studies in the field of his choosing while most people are still choosing majors (and figuring out that "Beast" is a nickname for Milwaukee's Best). Sure there's a lot of fun stuff you experience by being the normal college age during college, but there's a lot of time-wasting stuff too. Gifted kids are often deeply interested in the fields in which their talents lie. Forcing them to spend 18 years pursuing generalist knowledge they could compact into far fewer years keeps them from devoting time to their passions.
As people have pointed out in other threads on this blog, if you devote more time to your passion, you often become very good at it. So no wonder accelerated kids do better in their careers. I don't know if it's an argument that would persuade a reluctant school, but it's worth a shot.
Monday, April 03, 2006
The Trials of Gifted Bilingual Students
Two posts ago I wrote about an Arizona Republic columnist who pitted gifted kids against English language learners in a way that suggested kids couldn't possibly be both. Now I've learned, according to a South Bend Tribune article, that kids who are both face a very interesting, very modern problem. Namely, states have an incentive to claim that anyone who does well in school and is from a family that hasn't been in this country long, is part of their bilingual program. The federal No Child Left Behind law requires states to test their English language learners on English proficiency, and rates states based on passing rates. So even if you've been speaking English fluently for years and are completely mainstreamed, the state will pull you out of class to take the exam so it can include your high score in its average. That's what happened to Maymay Lam and Thuy Nguyen of Riley High School in South Bend. You can read their story here.
Basically, these girls who speak English as well as any of us were pulled out of their advanced classes for hours and forced to take a test that featured oral questions like "Example: Martha went to the store to buy groceries. Question: What did Martha do?" Then the teacher would hold up a picture of a chair and ask "what is this?" and "how do you use it?" Lam refused to take the rest of the test, saying it was insulting. Now the state is saying she doesn't have any choice; they are "forced" to do this through NCLB, even though Lam was born in the United States. Because she speaks Chinese at home, Indiana is trying to rope her in.
I hope Lam prevails in her fight. When I was a high school student in Indiana, I managed to get out of taking a basic 10th grade test that would have required me to miss days of my calculus class simply to be a guinea pig for the new test the state was thinking of using. My family said I would stay home; eventually, my school agreed I didn't have to take it. These families are already a step ahead of the game by calling up the local paper. With any luck, other families will be inspired to fight this time-waster as well.
Two posts ago I wrote about an Arizona Republic columnist who pitted gifted kids against English language learners in a way that suggested kids couldn't possibly be both. Now I've learned, according to a South Bend Tribune article, that kids who are both face a very interesting, very modern problem. Namely, states have an incentive to claim that anyone who does well in school and is from a family that hasn't been in this country long, is part of their bilingual program. The federal No Child Left Behind law requires states to test their English language learners on English proficiency, and rates states based on passing rates. So even if you've been speaking English fluently for years and are completely mainstreamed, the state will pull you out of class to take the exam so it can include your high score in its average. That's what happened to Maymay Lam and Thuy Nguyen of Riley High School in South Bend. You can read their story here.
Basically, these girls who speak English as well as any of us were pulled out of their advanced classes for hours and forced to take a test that featured oral questions like "Example: Martha went to the store to buy groceries. Question: What did Martha do?" Then the teacher would hold up a picture of a chair and ask "what is this?" and "how do you use it?" Lam refused to take the rest of the test, saying it was insulting. Now the state is saying she doesn't have any choice; they are "forced" to do this through NCLB, even though Lam was born in the United States. Because she speaks Chinese at home, Indiana is trying to rope her in.
I hope Lam prevails in her fight. When I was a high school student in Indiana, I managed to get out of taking a basic 10th grade test that would have required me to miss days of my calculus class simply to be a guinea pig for the new test the state was thinking of using. My family said I would stay home; eventually, my school agreed I didn't have to take it. These families are already a step ahead of the game by calling up the local paper. With any luck, other families will be inspired to fight this time-waster as well.
Thursday, March 30, 2006
Brainy Kids' Brains Grow Slowly
That's the news from Nature, the scientific journal, in a new study out today. The cortex of all children's brains thickens as they get older, and then thins during the adolescent years. The cortexes (I'm stumped on the plural) of children with IQs of 121-149 thicken more slowly than those of children with average intelligence, reaching peak thickness at age 11, instead of age 6. Nature requires a subscription, but you can read an AP article about the research here.
No one knows quite what the implications of this are. One of the study authors suggested that a slower-thickening cortex could promote high intelligence, because the child is experiencing more complex things as his brain is growing. By this theory, gifted children would get a longer learning time than others; they'd still be learning rapidly into the late childhood years, where as other children would end that stage around age 6. But I'm not sure if that works, logically. Highly gifted children show their giftedness from infancy. They don't just outpace other children after age 6. Perhaps bright children seek out more stimulation, and this somehow slows the thickening of their cerebral cortexes (Again, what is the plural?).
Regardless, the research shows that there is a physical difference between children with gifted-level IQs and children of average intelligence. IQ tests get a bad rap, and certainly they can't show what a child will accomplish in life. Maybe they can be coached, and environment certainly plays a role. But these physical differences indicate that the tests are on to something, whatever that is.
That's the news from Nature, the scientific journal, in a new study out today. The cortex of all children's brains thickens as they get older, and then thins during the adolescent years. The cortexes (I'm stumped on the plural) of children with IQs of 121-149 thicken more slowly than those of children with average intelligence, reaching peak thickness at age 11, instead of age 6. Nature requires a subscription, but you can read an AP article about the research here.
No one knows quite what the implications of this are. One of the study authors suggested that a slower-thickening cortex could promote high intelligence, because the child is experiencing more complex things as his brain is growing. By this theory, gifted children would get a longer learning time than others; they'd still be learning rapidly into the late childhood years, where as other children would end that stage around age 6. But I'm not sure if that works, logically. Highly gifted children show their giftedness from infancy. They don't just outpace other children after age 6. Perhaps bright children seek out more stimulation, and this somehow slows the thickening of their cerebral cortexes (Again, what is the plural?).
Regardless, the research shows that there is a physical difference between children with gifted-level IQs and children of average intelligence. IQ tests get a bad rap, and certainly they can't show what a child will accomplish in life. Maybe they can be coached, and environment certainly plays a role. But these physical differences indicate that the tests are on to something, whatever that is.
Tuesday, March 28, 2006
"Lawmakers Play Favorites With Schools"
If you really want to get your blood boiling, check out this recent op-ed from Arizona Republic columnist Richard Ruelas.
The Arizona legislature considered two plans recently. One increased funding for gifted education by 49%. The legislators also looked at a proposal to increase funding for English language learners by 21%. Ruelas sees a conspiracy afoot to help children named "Logan" or "Madison" who "sail through with so much ease, it's almost tedious," while leaving children named Maria or Jose behind with a measly 21% funding increase.
He's correct that the Arizona legislature has been dragging its feet on coming up with a good funding mechanism for ESL students. The state now faces hefty fines for failing to put good programs in place.
But there are two problems with his argument that the legislature's incompetence in the ESL field is in any way evidence that lawmakers prefer to give "handouts" to children who have it easy. First, English language learners and gifted students are sets with an intersection. It's pretty insulting to gifted immigrant children to suggest that there's no way, no siree, no possibility that they might be gifted.
And second, I looked up the numbers. This man is managing to whine that ESL learners are getting a low boost even though ESL funds are being boosted far, far more, per capita, than gifted funds.
Arizona has 154,000 students classified as English learners. The legislature is considering raising the per capita ESL spending (on top of the standard cost to educate a student) from $355 to $432. That means an increase of $77 per child. Total ESL spending would rise from about $55 million to $67 million.
The gifted education bill would raise per pupil spending on gifted education from $55 to $82. That's an increase of $27, or 49%.
To review. ESL funding is increasing by $77 per child. Gifted funding is increasing by $27 per child. The only reason the percentage increase is twice as high for gifted education is that gifted education is starting from such a low funding level. Call me crazy, but I don't see a $27 boost as a conspiracy to enrich the Logans and Madisons of the world. Especially when compared with a $77 per pupil funding increase in ESL.
But Ruelas doesn't care about the numbers. Read this excerpt:
"The sponsor of the [gifted education] bill, Rep. Mark Anderson, R-Mesa, testified that gifted children drop out of school because they get bored. He told me the same during a phone interview.
"'I've talked to several kids,' he said. '(They say) 'I was always in trouble. I've read all the books in the library, and then what was I supposed to do?'
"Maybe go to Barnes & Noble?"
The man doesn't get it.
If you really want to get your blood boiling, check out this recent op-ed from Arizona Republic columnist Richard Ruelas.
The Arizona legislature considered two plans recently. One increased funding for gifted education by 49%. The legislators also looked at a proposal to increase funding for English language learners by 21%. Ruelas sees a conspiracy afoot to help children named "Logan" or "Madison" who "sail through with so much ease, it's almost tedious," while leaving children named Maria or Jose behind with a measly 21% funding increase.
He's correct that the Arizona legislature has been dragging its feet on coming up with a good funding mechanism for ESL students. The state now faces hefty fines for failing to put good programs in place.
But there are two problems with his argument that the legislature's incompetence in the ESL field is in any way evidence that lawmakers prefer to give "handouts" to children who have it easy. First, English language learners and gifted students are sets with an intersection. It's pretty insulting to gifted immigrant children to suggest that there's no way, no siree, no possibility that they might be gifted.
And second, I looked up the numbers. This man is managing to whine that ESL learners are getting a low boost even though ESL funds are being boosted far, far more, per capita, than gifted funds.
Arizona has 154,000 students classified as English learners. The legislature is considering raising the per capita ESL spending (on top of the standard cost to educate a student) from $355 to $432. That means an increase of $77 per child. Total ESL spending would rise from about $55 million to $67 million.
The gifted education bill would raise per pupil spending on gifted education from $55 to $82. That's an increase of $27, or 49%.
To review. ESL funding is increasing by $77 per child. Gifted funding is increasing by $27 per child. The only reason the percentage increase is twice as high for gifted education is that gifted education is starting from such a low funding level. Call me crazy, but I don't see a $27 boost as a conspiracy to enrich the Logans and Madisons of the world. Especially when compared with a $77 per pupil funding increase in ESL.
But Ruelas doesn't care about the numbers. Read this excerpt:
"The sponsor of the [gifted education] bill, Rep. Mark Anderson, R-Mesa, testified that gifted children drop out of school because they get bored. He told me the same during a phone interview.
"'I've talked to several kids,' he said. '(They say) 'I was always in trouble. I've read all the books in the library, and then what was I supposed to do?'
"Maybe go to Barnes & Noble?"
The man doesn't get it.
Sunday, March 26, 2006
Learning a Second Language, Young
Bay City, Michigan is considering a fascinating new preschool concept. A new pilot program will immerse 3- and 4-year-olds in Mandarin Chinese for half the day; the children will learn in English the other half of the time. You can read an Associated Press article about the program here.
The district is not providing any funds for the program, which might be a blessing. There won't be much controversy that way (which, given the complaining about the IB program's international focus, might otherwise be anticipated). The program hopes to attract grants. It is being sold as a way to help Michigan students compete in a global economy that features 1.3 billion Chinese people, many of whom speak Mandarin.
All well and good. Portraying the program that way might help attract funds from Chinese-American business people. But I think the key to this program lies in what the Bay City gifted coordinator mentioned in the article, that children's brains are like sponges when they're this little. New evidence in early childhood development points to the idea that the brain grows like crazy when children are 0-5 years old. During these years, we are programmed to learn as much as we can about this world. After that, however, we have a little more trouble learning things. Our brains slow down on the neurological pathway development front. We learn, but not like we learn words when we're little.
Unfortunately, too few kids are immersed in rich learning environments during these years. I'm not sure what the solution to that problem is; I'm not a fan of the universal preschool proposals out there for two reasons. First, I worry that these preschool programs will suffer from the same low standards that dog the K-12 years in many public school systems. Second, many families are capable of providing enriching environments for children's early years. Parents read to their children, talk to them, play with them, take them to fascinating places, etc. Not all families need or want preschool, so making preschool mandatory, like K-12 grades are, would be a step backward.
But if families do choose to put their kids in preschool, immersion programs like this Mandarin one would be wonderful. Not only will kids learn Chinese, their brains will grow and form different, more problem-solving pathways than they otherwise might. That's what will help these Michigan kids in the global economy, not their fluency in Mandarin.
Bay City, Michigan is considering a fascinating new preschool concept. A new pilot program will immerse 3- and 4-year-olds in Mandarin Chinese for half the day; the children will learn in English the other half of the time. You can read an Associated Press article about the program here.
The district is not providing any funds for the program, which might be a blessing. There won't be much controversy that way (which, given the complaining about the IB program's international focus, might otherwise be anticipated). The program hopes to attract grants. It is being sold as a way to help Michigan students compete in a global economy that features 1.3 billion Chinese people, many of whom speak Mandarin.
All well and good. Portraying the program that way might help attract funds from Chinese-American business people. But I think the key to this program lies in what the Bay City gifted coordinator mentioned in the article, that children's brains are like sponges when they're this little. New evidence in early childhood development points to the idea that the brain grows like crazy when children are 0-5 years old. During these years, we are programmed to learn as much as we can about this world. After that, however, we have a little more trouble learning things. Our brains slow down on the neurological pathway development front. We learn, but not like we learn words when we're little.
Unfortunately, too few kids are immersed in rich learning environments during these years. I'm not sure what the solution to that problem is; I'm not a fan of the universal preschool proposals out there for two reasons. First, I worry that these preschool programs will suffer from the same low standards that dog the K-12 years in many public school systems. Second, many families are capable of providing enriching environments for children's early years. Parents read to their children, talk to them, play with them, take them to fascinating places, etc. Not all families need or want preschool, so making preschool mandatory, like K-12 grades are, would be a step backward.
But if families do choose to put their kids in preschool, immersion programs like this Mandarin one would be wonderful. Not only will kids learn Chinese, their brains will grow and form different, more problem-solving pathways than they otherwise might. That's what will help these Michigan kids in the global economy, not their fluency in Mandarin.
Thursday, March 23, 2006
Update on Bomkamp Story
This blog has been following the story of Alison Bomkamp for the last few months. Alison is a Kentucky first grader who skipped kindergarten. Since the state of Kentucky only funds half day kindergarten, the Bomkamp family received a bill for half the cost of Alison's first grade education, or $3,000. The Bomkamps refused to pay (after all, Alison is saving the district money by taking 12 years to go through school instead of 13), and the case got a lot of media attention. As a result, the district waived the fee for the Bomkamps, but asked for future guidance from the legislature on this issue.
I'm happy to report that the Kentucky legislature passed, unanimously, a bill clarifying that children who skip kindergarten are still eligible for the free public education Kentucky provides its other young citizens. You can read an article on the news, "House Passes Funds For Gifted" in the Cincinnati Enquirer.
Shauna Bomkamp, Alison's mom and an occasional reader of this blog, notes that Alison is enjoying school and doing well academically. "It's a battle, obviously, but if more parents would just be willing to speak out we can initiate change!" she says. I think we can be as unanimous about that sentiment as the Kentucky legislature was on this bill.
This blog has been following the story of Alison Bomkamp for the last few months. Alison is a Kentucky first grader who skipped kindergarten. Since the state of Kentucky only funds half day kindergarten, the Bomkamp family received a bill for half the cost of Alison's first grade education, or $3,000. The Bomkamps refused to pay (after all, Alison is saving the district money by taking 12 years to go through school instead of 13), and the case got a lot of media attention. As a result, the district waived the fee for the Bomkamps, but asked for future guidance from the legislature on this issue.
I'm happy to report that the Kentucky legislature passed, unanimously, a bill clarifying that children who skip kindergarten are still eligible for the free public education Kentucky provides its other young citizens. You can read an article on the news, "House Passes Funds For Gifted" in the Cincinnati Enquirer.
Shauna Bomkamp, Alison's mom and an occasional reader of this blog, notes that Alison is enjoying school and doing well academically. "It's a battle, obviously, but if more parents would just be willing to speak out we can initiate change!" she says. I think we can be as unanimous about that sentiment as the Kentucky legislature was on this bill.
Monday, March 20, 2006
Sally Ride on Math and Science
USA Today has a great interview today with Sally Ride, the first American woman in space. She makes a few points that are germane to the discussion on America's math and science "edge" and the role of women in creating that edge. First, we used to think that women wouldn't make good doctors or lawyers, but now those professional schools are 50-50. It's possible that stereotypes in math and science are just slightly more entrenched. Second, girls have perceptions of engineering that consist of a 65-year-old guy in a lab coat hunched over his experiments in a basement somewhere. She recommends linking promising female math and science types up with "the coolest female engineer in the company" to show that those perceptions are false. And finally, she calls for vouchers to help hold schools' feet to the fire in creating higher standards.
As the numbers at the start of the piece point out, India graduated 200,000 engineers in 2004 (I'm guessing they mean undergraduate degrees, though this isn't said). The U.S. graduated 70,000. Engineering fields will grow fast and create a lot of new jobs in the next few years. By my calculation, if the U.S. graduated as many female engineers as male engineers, the total could rise to about 115,000, a far more competitive number. I've written in previous posts that we should remember that not everyone with capabilities in math and science wants to be an engineer. I like to think I could have been a good one, but my main interests lay elsewhere. Still, changing perceptions of engineering, and some good outreach, could really shake up the situation. Hopefully Sally Ride will lead the way, just as she did into space.
USA Today has a great interview today with Sally Ride, the first American woman in space. She makes a few points that are germane to the discussion on America's math and science "edge" and the role of women in creating that edge. First, we used to think that women wouldn't make good doctors or lawyers, but now those professional schools are 50-50. It's possible that stereotypes in math and science are just slightly more entrenched. Second, girls have perceptions of engineering that consist of a 65-year-old guy in a lab coat hunched over his experiments in a basement somewhere. She recommends linking promising female math and science types up with "the coolest female engineer in the company" to show that those perceptions are false. And finally, she calls for vouchers to help hold schools' feet to the fire in creating higher standards.
As the numbers at the start of the piece point out, India graduated 200,000 engineers in 2004 (I'm guessing they mean undergraduate degrees, though this isn't said). The U.S. graduated 70,000. Engineering fields will grow fast and create a lot of new jobs in the next few years. By my calculation, if the U.S. graduated as many female engineers as male engineers, the total could rise to about 115,000, a far more competitive number. I've written in previous posts that we should remember that not everyone with capabilities in math and science wants to be an engineer. I like to think I could have been a good one, but my main interests lay elsewhere. Still, changing perceptions of engineering, and some good outreach, could really shake up the situation. Hopefully Sally Ride will lead the way, just as she did into space.
Friday, March 17, 2006
IB Controversial?
In the enriched curriculum family, the IB -- International Baccalaureate -- is the lesser known sister of the more popular Advanced Placement program. But it's gaining fans. The program is offered at 677 schools in the United States. The number of IB students worldwide grew 73 percent between 2000 and 2005, to 62,885. First started in Switzerland as an internationally-recognized curriculum for diplomats' kids, the IB pushes deep inquiry into subjects, international knowledge and lengthy writing assignments.
It's also, apparently, making enemies, according to this article from the Associated Press.
Some claim the curriculum is expensive, which is probably true. Some claim it is anti-American. I checked the IB website, www.ibo.org, and it does seem that the "Individuals and societies" curricular area doesn't cover American history (it does cover Islamic history). However, IB is only a 2 year program. Presumably, American students would have studied American history in one of the other 4 years they're in middle or high school. Some also claim the IB is Marxist for its international angle, and the fact that the IB organization signed the Earth Charter. The Earth Charter is one of those funny documents that has nice sounding ideas (we will all live in peace and harmony) that, in the fine print, have the same level of realism as leprachauns. For instance, the Earth Charter states that we will, in our bright shining future, "eliminate corruption in all public and private institutions." Also, militaries will avoid activities damaging to the environment. I'm sure the militias fighting in the Sudan are thinking hard about how much they're recycling right now.
But anyway, so what? So the IB signed this charter calling for an equitable distribution of wealth among nations. Is it preferable to ditch the curriculum for this sin, and give bright kids the watered-down curriculum many schools offer, in which you learn almost nothing about economics and never have to write a 4,000 word paper on anything?
School should help kids learn to learn. You can do this reading Karl Marx, or Adam Smith, the Koran, the Bible, any work of serious social consequence. Rigorous analysis of all those works, in fact, would be preferable to the "color in a map of all the former Soviet Republics" method of learning I got in my middle years of schooling. (I got a B, by the way, because I shaded Kazakhstan in more than one color). The last thing American kids need is to lose a rigorous curricular option because of a political battle.
In the enriched curriculum family, the IB -- International Baccalaureate -- is the lesser known sister of the more popular Advanced Placement program. But it's gaining fans. The program is offered at 677 schools in the United States. The number of IB students worldwide grew 73 percent between 2000 and 2005, to 62,885. First started in Switzerland as an internationally-recognized curriculum for diplomats' kids, the IB pushes deep inquiry into subjects, international knowledge and lengthy writing assignments.
It's also, apparently, making enemies, according to this article from the Associated Press.
Some claim the curriculum is expensive, which is probably true. Some claim it is anti-American. I checked the IB website, www.ibo.org, and it does seem that the "Individuals and societies" curricular area doesn't cover American history (it does cover Islamic history). However, IB is only a 2 year program. Presumably, American students would have studied American history in one of the other 4 years they're in middle or high school. Some also claim the IB is Marxist for its international angle, and the fact that the IB organization signed the Earth Charter. The Earth Charter is one of those funny documents that has nice sounding ideas (we will all live in peace and harmony) that, in the fine print, have the same level of realism as leprachauns. For instance, the Earth Charter states that we will, in our bright shining future, "eliminate corruption in all public and private institutions." Also, militaries will avoid activities damaging to the environment. I'm sure the militias fighting in the Sudan are thinking hard about how much they're recycling right now.
But anyway, so what? So the IB signed this charter calling for an equitable distribution of wealth among nations. Is it preferable to ditch the curriculum for this sin, and give bright kids the watered-down curriculum many schools offer, in which you learn almost nothing about economics and never have to write a 4,000 word paper on anything?
School should help kids learn to learn. You can do this reading Karl Marx, or Adam Smith, the Koran, the Bible, any work of serious social consequence. Rigorous analysis of all those works, in fact, would be preferable to the "color in a map of all the former Soviet Republics" method of learning I got in my middle years of schooling. (I got a B, by the way, because I shaded Kazakhstan in more than one color). The last thing American kids need is to lose a rigorous curricular option because of a political battle.
Tuesday, March 14, 2006
A "One Kid" Story
Often, when parents want to have their kids skip grades, someone will bring up the tale of "one kid" who was accelerated years ago. In this tale, the acceleration experience turned out horribly for everyone involved. As a result of this "one kid," the school won't allow other children to accelerate.
I'd like to present the story of "one kid" who did a lot better after accelerating.
Dustin Hartman has always been a very bright -- and very sensitive -- boy. He had some bad experiences in school several years ago, to the point where he developed migraines and stomach pains. His mother fought for him to get an appropriate education that didn't cause him to be so unhappy that his unhappiness turned into physical illness. The solution she and her school finally hit upon? Radical acceleration.
Now, Dustin will graduate from high school at age 13. You can read about his story in this Chattanooga Times Free Press article.
Acceleration not only made him happier, it made him healthier. It's a story worth clipping for whenever someone brings up that "one kid" who had a bad experience.
Often, when parents want to have their kids skip grades, someone will bring up the tale of "one kid" who was accelerated years ago. In this tale, the acceleration experience turned out horribly for everyone involved. As a result of this "one kid," the school won't allow other children to accelerate.
I'd like to present the story of "one kid" who did a lot better after accelerating.
Dustin Hartman has always been a very bright -- and very sensitive -- boy. He had some bad experiences in school several years ago, to the point where he developed migraines and stomach pains. His mother fought for him to get an appropriate education that didn't cause him to be so unhappy that his unhappiness turned into physical illness. The solution she and her school finally hit upon? Radical acceleration.
Now, Dustin will graduate from high school at age 13. You can read about his story in this Chattanooga Times Free Press article.
Acceleration not only made him happier, it made him healthier. It's a story worth clipping for whenever someone brings up that "one kid" who had a bad experience.
Thursday, March 09, 2006
SMPY Kids at 35
Can early talent predict grown-up talent? It can, according to a new study from Vanderbilt on the kids in the ongoing Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth. A press release on the study can be found at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/news/releases?id=25185. (sorry I am traveling in Arizona right now and don't have my html command cheat sheet with me to hotlink this!).
Basically, kids who scored above 700 on the SAT Math section or above 630 on the verbal section at age 12 were as likely as a control group of graduate students in top programs, who were first surveyed in their 20's, to be on tenure tracks at top 50 institutions or earn over $100,000 a year at age 35. Researchers compared the SMPY kids with the graduate students because these graduate students were identified as very bright as adults (by their admission to top math, science and engineering programs). The SMPY kids were identified as very bright before their teens. That both have similar outcomes on certain success measures indicates that talent searches, which find gifted kids by giving them out-of-level tests, can indeed identify talent. The prodigy-who-flames-out story is perhaps not as common as people think it is.
Of course, with studies like this there's always a certain problem with identifying what makes people successful. I'm not sure that being in a tenure track job, earning over $100,000 a year, earning a medical degree (another variable studied) or the other criteria are the sum total of success. But you have to measure something. So on these measures, the SMPY kids were successful.
But in one sense -- the Darwinian sense -- they were phenomenally unsuccessful. 60-70% of the SMPY kids (and the grad student cohort, interestingly) were childless at age 35. Only about 20-25% of the American population does not have children by that age.
In other words, America's brightest young people are far more likely to choose to have children late (and hence, likely only have one child) or not at all.
Why on earth is that? Do people think you can't go to graduate school and reproduce? Are SMPY kids more likely than others to think having children isn't a top priority? To me, exploring the reasons for this low rate of child bearing would be a far more interesting study than learning that SMPY kids earned doctorates at 50 times the rate of the rest of America.
Can early talent predict grown-up talent? It can, according to a new study from Vanderbilt on the kids in the ongoing Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth. A press release on the study can be found at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/news/releases?id=25185. (sorry I am traveling in Arizona right now and don't have my html command cheat sheet with me to hotlink this!).
Basically, kids who scored above 700 on the SAT Math section or above 630 on the verbal section at age 12 were as likely as a control group of graduate students in top programs, who were first surveyed in their 20's, to be on tenure tracks at top 50 institutions or earn over $100,000 a year at age 35. Researchers compared the SMPY kids with the graduate students because these graduate students were identified as very bright as adults (by their admission to top math, science and engineering programs). The SMPY kids were identified as very bright before their teens. That both have similar outcomes on certain success measures indicates that talent searches, which find gifted kids by giving them out-of-level tests, can indeed identify talent. The prodigy-who-flames-out story is perhaps not as common as people think it is.
Of course, with studies like this there's always a certain problem with identifying what makes people successful. I'm not sure that being in a tenure track job, earning over $100,000 a year, earning a medical degree (another variable studied) or the other criteria are the sum total of success. But you have to measure something. So on these measures, the SMPY kids were successful.
But in one sense -- the Darwinian sense -- they were phenomenally unsuccessful. 60-70% of the SMPY kids (and the grad student cohort, interestingly) were childless at age 35. Only about 20-25% of the American population does not have children by that age.
In other words, America's brightest young people are far more likely to choose to have children late (and hence, likely only have one child) or not at all.
Why on earth is that? Do people think you can't go to graduate school and reproduce? Are SMPY kids more likely than others to think having children isn't a top priority? To me, exploring the reasons for this low rate of child bearing would be a far more interesting study than learning that SMPY kids earned doctorates at 50 times the rate of the rest of America.
Tuesday, March 07, 2006
Wilmington Charter to be "investigated"
The best school for gifted kids in Delaware is under attack for, in essence, being the best school for gifted kids in Delaware.
I visited the Charter School of Wilmington (or "Charter") three years ago to profile it for Genius Denied. No sign outside announced the school's presence, and indeed the black floors and chipping paint did not suggest a stellar institution. But on top of that chipped paint I saw posters advertising a luncheon lecture from a visiting scholar. Apparently, said scholar had spoken a few days before and so many students attended the lecture that the school had to schedule a second appearance. Students giving up their lunch break to learn more? I remember thinking that there were very few high schools in this country where that would happen.
Delaware State Rep. Nancy Wagner (R-Dover) has decided that Charter should become a school where that doesn't happen.
There's no other way to explain her insistence, as the Wilmington News-Journal reported Friday, that the Attorney General's office investigate Charter for violating Delaware state law by having a selective admissions process. She is of the opinion, according to the article, that "There is nothing in the law that allows a charter school to look at a student's academic record and pick and choose which students to accept . ... As far as I'm concerned, they are breaking the law." Charter's admissions process amounts to "skimming off the cream of the crop" as she told the News-Journal in a creamy blend of metaphors, and the article paraphrased her as saying that it's important to have gifted kids in all classrooms, so their peers can learn from them. In other words, they need to rot (like ungathered crops.. or like unused cream) in schools where kids don't flock to lunch time lectures. That would satisfy Wagner's idea of fairness.
As Wagner is the chairwoman of the House Education Committee, this is a threat to take seriously. Here's the back story.
Six Delaware companies (including pharmaceutical giant AstraZeneca) chartered "Charter" a few years ago to help solve the problem of lousy math and science education in Wilmington. These companies wanted their employees' children to have a solid education, and they wanted the future local workforce to have the skills necessary to work for them. The founders tapped Ron Russo, a popular local principal, to lead the school and institute a demanding curriculum.
The first few years, Russo took everyone who applied. He also hired great teachers and instituted a curriculum littered with AP classes and beyond (like differential equations). Not surprisingly, the school had a very high dropout rate. Some students were unprepared for the rigors and decided to attend less challenging high schools. This was frustrating to Russo and the teachers.
Fortunately, demand grew as families learned about Charter. By year four, more students wanted to attend than Russo had space for. So he had to figure out what to do. Delaware state charter law allows schools to give preference to siblings or those who live within five miles, but it does not specifically provide for being academically selective. After filling spots with sibling and local preferences, charter schools are supposed to conduct a blind lottery for admissions. However, there's also a clause saying schools can choose students who show an interest in the school's methods, philosophy or educational focus.
Russo decided that it would be easier to beg forgiveness than ask permission. So he decided to cut the dropout rate by choosing students who showed an interest in a rigorous curriculum -- by doing well in school. Now students take tests for admission and must turn in recommendations.
The result is a school that tilts toward the high end of academic ability, and has a large proportion of gifted students. Not all students at Charter are gifted, but enough are that teachers can cater to these students through advanced classes, independent research and all those things that make school fun for gifted kids.
And now, the head of the House Education Committee wants to put a stop to this. She doesn't seem to grasp that the Charter situation is like the farmer with the goose who lays golden eggs. Rather than be thrilled that a Delaware public school is producing golden eggs, Wagner wants to cut open the goose to get all the eggs quickly. But if Charter has to fill its spots via blind lottery, it won't be Charter. And then families won't want their kids to attend like they do now.
Rep. Wagner's email address is Nancy.Wagner@state.de.us if any Delaware residents who are reading this blog wish to contact her. My experience with writing legislators is that it doesn't help to write if you're not from the region they represent, but it really does if you are. So pass the news along to anyone you know in Dover, Delaware. Charter's local Red Clay school district is highly supportive of the school, so the House shenanigans may come to naught. But better to let people know that someone thinks gifted kids deserve to have their needs met, just like other kids., than take the chance.
The best school for gifted kids in Delaware is under attack for, in essence, being the best school for gifted kids in Delaware.
I visited the Charter School of Wilmington (or "Charter") three years ago to profile it for Genius Denied. No sign outside announced the school's presence, and indeed the black floors and chipping paint did not suggest a stellar institution. But on top of that chipped paint I saw posters advertising a luncheon lecture from a visiting scholar. Apparently, said scholar had spoken a few days before and so many students attended the lecture that the school had to schedule a second appearance. Students giving up their lunch break to learn more? I remember thinking that there were very few high schools in this country where that would happen.
Delaware State Rep. Nancy Wagner (R-Dover) has decided that Charter should become a school where that doesn't happen.
There's no other way to explain her insistence, as the Wilmington News-Journal reported Friday, that the Attorney General's office investigate Charter for violating Delaware state law by having a selective admissions process. She is of the opinion, according to the article, that "There is nothing in the law that allows a charter school to look at a student's academic record and pick and choose which students to accept . ... As far as I'm concerned, they are breaking the law." Charter's admissions process amounts to "skimming off the cream of the crop" as she told the News-Journal in a creamy blend of metaphors, and the article paraphrased her as saying that it's important to have gifted kids in all classrooms, so their peers can learn from them. In other words, they need to rot (like ungathered crops.. or like unused cream) in schools where kids don't flock to lunch time lectures. That would satisfy Wagner's idea of fairness.
As Wagner is the chairwoman of the House Education Committee, this is a threat to take seriously. Here's the back story.
Six Delaware companies (including pharmaceutical giant AstraZeneca) chartered "Charter" a few years ago to help solve the problem of lousy math and science education in Wilmington. These companies wanted their employees' children to have a solid education, and they wanted the future local workforce to have the skills necessary to work for them. The founders tapped Ron Russo, a popular local principal, to lead the school and institute a demanding curriculum.
The first few years, Russo took everyone who applied. He also hired great teachers and instituted a curriculum littered with AP classes and beyond (like differential equations). Not surprisingly, the school had a very high dropout rate. Some students were unprepared for the rigors and decided to attend less challenging high schools. This was frustrating to Russo and the teachers.
Fortunately, demand grew as families learned about Charter. By year four, more students wanted to attend than Russo had space for. So he had to figure out what to do. Delaware state charter law allows schools to give preference to siblings or those who live within five miles, but it does not specifically provide for being academically selective. After filling spots with sibling and local preferences, charter schools are supposed to conduct a blind lottery for admissions. However, there's also a clause saying schools can choose students who show an interest in the school's methods, philosophy or educational focus.
Russo decided that it would be easier to beg forgiveness than ask permission. So he decided to cut the dropout rate by choosing students who showed an interest in a rigorous curriculum -- by doing well in school. Now students take tests for admission and must turn in recommendations.
The result is a school that tilts toward the high end of academic ability, and has a large proportion of gifted students. Not all students at Charter are gifted, but enough are that teachers can cater to these students through advanced classes, independent research and all those things that make school fun for gifted kids.
And now, the head of the House Education Committee wants to put a stop to this. She doesn't seem to grasp that the Charter situation is like the farmer with the goose who lays golden eggs. Rather than be thrilled that a Delaware public school is producing golden eggs, Wagner wants to cut open the goose to get all the eggs quickly. But if Charter has to fill its spots via blind lottery, it won't be Charter. And then families won't want their kids to attend like they do now.
Rep. Wagner's email address is Nancy.Wagner@state.de.us if any Delaware residents who are reading this blog wish to contact her. My experience with writing legislators is that it doesn't help to write if you're not from the region they represent, but it really does if you are. So pass the news along to anyone you know in Dover, Delaware. Charter's local Red Clay school district is highly supportive of the school, so the House shenanigans may come to naught. But better to let people know that someone thinks gifted kids deserve to have their needs met, just like other kids., than take the chance.
Monday, March 06, 2006
Not Understandable, or Not Interesting?
Several stories appeared in the news last week about a Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation survey which questioned high school drop-outs on why they dropped out. The findings were quite interesting. Most weren't failing; more than 6 in 10 were earning C averages or better when they dropped out. Most (70%) also believed they could have finished high school if they'd tried. You can read one story about the findings in USA Today, here, "Dropouts say their schools expected too little of them".
Some studies have found that about 15-20% of high school dropouts test in the gifted range, so the answers these young people gave aren't terribly surprising to me. But what was surprising was one education expert's attempts to down play the findings and pretty much rule out the explanation that school really is too boring and too slow moving for a lot of kids. According to the USA Today article, Jay Greene, who chairs the Department of Education Reform at the University of Arkansas, says the report gives an interesting perspective.
But Greene, notes the article, cautions that students' points of view represent only "a partial and possibly distorted picture."
According to the article: "For instance, 69% of dropouts say they weren't motivated, and another 47% say classes weren't interesting. That is simply another way for students to say that their basic skills weren't up to the task of high school-level work, Greene says. 'Being in school seems like a big waste of your time because you don't understand what's going on. You can't understand the material that's being assigned to you.'"
Um, what if they really do understand it? What if they aren't motivated in part because classes aren't interesting, and because they're not being challenged? I thought big chunks of high school were a waste of time, and I did understand the material being assigned to me. Personally, I'm inclined to take the perspective of dropouts who weren't failing at face value. High school needs to be more challenging for all students -- and gifted ones, especially. Being gifted is no protection against dropping out.
Unfortunately, being gifted is also no protection against the problems that young droupouts encounter, including having trouble finding jobs and qualifying for other educational opportunities. Hopefully the Gates Foundation will put their money behind finding ways to keep gifted kids engaged in school as a result of this report (alas, I'm not holding my breath, given the Small Learning Communities initiatives the foundation has been funding).
Several stories appeared in the news last week about a Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation survey which questioned high school drop-outs on why they dropped out. The findings were quite interesting. Most weren't failing; more than 6 in 10 were earning C averages or better when they dropped out. Most (70%) also believed they could have finished high school if they'd tried. You can read one story about the findings in USA Today, here, "Dropouts say their schools expected too little of them".
Some studies have found that about 15-20% of high school dropouts test in the gifted range, so the answers these young people gave aren't terribly surprising to me. But what was surprising was one education expert's attempts to down play the findings and pretty much rule out the explanation that school really is too boring and too slow moving for a lot of kids. According to the USA Today article, Jay Greene, who chairs the Department of Education Reform at the University of Arkansas, says the report gives an interesting perspective.
But Greene, notes the article, cautions that students' points of view represent only "a partial and possibly distorted picture."
According to the article: "For instance, 69% of dropouts say they weren't motivated, and another 47% say classes weren't interesting. That is simply another way for students to say that their basic skills weren't up to the task of high school-level work, Greene says. 'Being in school seems like a big waste of your time because you don't understand what's going on. You can't understand the material that's being assigned to you.'"
Um, what if they really do understand it? What if they aren't motivated in part because classes aren't interesting, and because they're not being challenged? I thought big chunks of high school were a waste of time, and I did understand the material being assigned to me. Personally, I'm inclined to take the perspective of dropouts who weren't failing at face value. High school needs to be more challenging for all students -- and gifted ones, especially. Being gifted is no protection against dropping out.
Unfortunately, being gifted is also no protection against the problems that young droupouts encounter, including having trouble finding jobs and qualifying for other educational opportunities. Hopefully the Gates Foundation will put their money behind finding ways to keep gifted kids engaged in school as a result of this report (alas, I'm not holding my breath, given the Small Learning Communities initiatives the foundation has been funding).
Thursday, March 02, 2006
Misdiagnosed
A few posts ago we talked about gifted kids who were misdiagnosed as having ADD or ADHD. Cookie magazine's March & April issue (on news stands) has an equally alarming essay about a gifted boy named Alex who was misdiagnosed as autistic.
Cookie is a new magazine, and it's pretty funny -- think Vogue, only instead of the Fendi "it" bag your accessory is a toddler. The back cover ad has children in Kenneth Cole Reaction clothing and one of the articles is about jetting with your family to Sweden. But leaving that aside, "Normal," an essay by Aliza Valdes-Rodriguez, is worth wading through the too-cute spring frocks.
Valdes-Rodriguez's son, Alex, spoke very early. He spoke in full sentences. He wouldn't walk for ages, then just decided to do so and did so. He would become obsessed with one particular game. When he kept speaking of himself in the second or third person, though, his parents became worried. Teachers suggested it might be autism. They had him tested, and the Southwestern Autism Network said that was indeed his issue. His parents were devastated.
Of course, Alex picked up on his parents' devastation, and would talk about them being sad. This was the first clue that he might have been misdiagnosed. Autistic children have an impaired abilty to understand emotions and emotional cues from other people. Valdes-Rodriguez did some more reading, and came to realize what might have happened. "Alex," she writes, "is a brown-skinned boy named Rodriguez in New Mexico, the poorest state in the union. I remembered that when I had suggested to one of the clinicians that perhaps Alex was simply a genius, he chuckled, as if this could not be possible."
But indeed it was possible. Growing up, the writer had to fight to be recognized as gifted herself. Now, the same thing was happening with her child. She got him retested by more autism experts, and they said the original diagnosis was dead wrong. She just had a very, very, very bright boy on her hands.
So why the strange third person talking? The obsessive behavior? These are signs of autism. It turns out that Alex's parents were "colluding to make this kid the way he is," according to the professor of psychology they took him to. Both neglected and misunderstood as kids, the two wouldn't let Alex do anything on his own -- smothering him in a sense. The professor pointed out that the Rodriguez family always referred to Alex as "we" -- as in "Now we're going to put on pants." Alex was just speaking this language style right back.
Once the family became aware of the problem, they changed it, and Alex's "autism" disappeared. The writer has some great thoughts about the struggles of gifted kids at the end, but you shiver to think what could have happened if she didn't keep poking at the diagnosis to see what was true and what was not.
A few posts ago we talked about gifted kids who were misdiagnosed as having ADD or ADHD. Cookie magazine's March & April issue (on news stands) has an equally alarming essay about a gifted boy named Alex who was misdiagnosed as autistic.
Cookie is a new magazine, and it's pretty funny -- think Vogue, only instead of the Fendi "it" bag your accessory is a toddler. The back cover ad has children in Kenneth Cole Reaction clothing and one of the articles is about jetting with your family to Sweden. But leaving that aside, "Normal," an essay by Aliza Valdes-Rodriguez, is worth wading through the too-cute spring frocks.
Valdes-Rodriguez's son, Alex, spoke very early. He spoke in full sentences. He wouldn't walk for ages, then just decided to do so and did so. He would become obsessed with one particular game. When he kept speaking of himself in the second or third person, though, his parents became worried. Teachers suggested it might be autism. They had him tested, and the Southwestern Autism Network said that was indeed his issue. His parents were devastated.
Of course, Alex picked up on his parents' devastation, and would talk about them being sad. This was the first clue that he might have been misdiagnosed. Autistic children have an impaired abilty to understand emotions and emotional cues from other people. Valdes-Rodriguez did some more reading, and came to realize what might have happened. "Alex," she writes, "is a brown-skinned boy named Rodriguez in New Mexico, the poorest state in the union. I remembered that when I had suggested to one of the clinicians that perhaps Alex was simply a genius, he chuckled, as if this could not be possible."
But indeed it was possible. Growing up, the writer had to fight to be recognized as gifted herself. Now, the same thing was happening with her child. She got him retested by more autism experts, and they said the original diagnosis was dead wrong. She just had a very, very, very bright boy on her hands.
So why the strange third person talking? The obsessive behavior? These are signs of autism. It turns out that Alex's parents were "colluding to make this kid the way he is," according to the professor of psychology they took him to. Both neglected and misunderstood as kids, the two wouldn't let Alex do anything on his own -- smothering him in a sense. The professor pointed out that the Rodriguez family always referred to Alex as "we" -- as in "Now we're going to put on pants." Alex was just speaking this language style right back.
Once the family became aware of the problem, they changed it, and Alex's "autism" disappeared. The writer has some great thoughts about the struggles of gifted kids at the end, but you shiver to think what could have happened if she didn't keep poking at the diagnosis to see what was true and what was not.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
