Given that class size reduction is a key (and costly) component of many school reform efforts, I'm happy to see that it's being studied extensively. In the past few weeks, we've looked at a study from Kenya that showed that class size reduction is most effective when accompanied by ability grouping, and a rehash of the Tennessee STAR study that found that smaller classes benefit higher-achieving students more than lower-achieving students.
Now, a new study looking at schools in four countries (US, UK, Hong Kong and Switzerland) asks another question. If we assume that small classes are better for kids (which, I want to stress again, has not been proved conclusively -- it is very hard to isolate variables), why would we suppose that would be? Is it because teachers teach differently when they have smaller classes? Or is it because students behave differently in small classes?
According to research presented at the American Education Research Association conference in late March (and written up in this article in USA Today), it's not the former. In small classes, many teachers continue to teach as though they still have a large class. They make presentations that don't necessarily involve the students; they don't demonstrate what the students themselves will then do. But the students themselves spend more time on task. It seems that teachers are better able to maintain control in smaller classes, and so more time is spent on learning, and the students are able to spend more time engaged with the teacher than they are in larger classes.
It's a tricky issue. Perhaps if teachers were trained to better leverage their smaller classes, then small classes would result in more benefits. But it's hard to know. The article notes that in two of the four countries studied, the results were inconclusive. Indeed, some countries with the best academic results have the largest classes! This article (and chart, about halfway down) shows that while we quibble over whether classes have 20 or 25 pupils, in South Korea, Singapore, Hong Kong and Japan (high scorers all), class size averages over 30 students.
My own opinion? From what I've seen of various studies, I'm currently thinking that teacher quality and (much harder to control) student quality matter most. By "student quality" I mean kids coming to school ready to learn, well-fed, well-rested and safe, and firmly ensconced in a culture that values education. After that, ability grouping is probably the most important factor. After that, class size. So yes, we can spend billions to make classes smaller. But paying brilliant teachers $150,000 a year and removing any teacher who can't keep up is probably a better idea, even if it means class sizes of 30 or more.
Friday, April 04, 2008
Tuesday, April 01, 2008
Reducing Class Size May Increase Learning Gap
Ever since the first battle over passing No Child Left Behind, there's been a lot of discussion about closing the achievement gap between children of higher and lower socioeconomic status in schools. It appears quite possible that Congress will not reauthorize the bill. While this won't be the end of frequent testing and accountability as a way to close the achievement gap, people will definitely be throwing out other new ideas as well.
One popular one is the idea of reducing class sizes in the early grades. The oft-cited Tennessee STAR study, which randomly assigned thousands of young children to smaller or larger classes, found that children in general achieved better test scores when they were assigned to smaller classes. Other studies have cast some doubt on this finding, but for purposes of argument, let's say it's true.
Here's the thinking: children of lower socioeconomic status often arrive at school without a lot of the school preparation middle class families take for granted. Kids and parents may not necessarily read together. Kids might not know letters and numbers. Intuitively, it seems like giving the less-prepared kids more time and attention from teachers -- in smaller classes -- might help them catch up.
But this turns out not to be the case. According to a new look at the STAR study by Northwestern professor Spyros Konstantopoulos in March's Elementary School Journal, smaller classes do boost all students' achievement levels, but they also increase the achievement gap. It turns out that smaller class sizes benefit high achievers more than lower achievers. So while all students do better, high achievers do much better, and lower achievers do a little better.
It's not clear why this would be, but it complicates the "small class size" argument. Since we know that reducing class size and tracking by ability increases test scores more than simply reducing class size alone (see the Kenyan study from a few weeks ago) it's possible that ability grouping could help close the achievement gap. But perhaps not -- one would have to test all these variables at the same time.
Personally, I think it's more important that everyone do better than that you close the achievement gap, but not everyone thinks that way. For instance, many politicians and others lament the "growing gap between the rich and poor" at every opportunity, even though almost everyone in the US is better off materially than they were 50 years ago. Sometimes people view relative position as more important than absolute position, and so we will see how the education community interprets these latest results. Anyway, it's food for thought.
One popular one is the idea of reducing class sizes in the early grades. The oft-cited Tennessee STAR study, which randomly assigned thousands of young children to smaller or larger classes, found that children in general achieved better test scores when they were assigned to smaller classes. Other studies have cast some doubt on this finding, but for purposes of argument, let's say it's true.
Here's the thinking: children of lower socioeconomic status often arrive at school without a lot of the school preparation middle class families take for granted. Kids and parents may not necessarily read together. Kids might not know letters and numbers. Intuitively, it seems like giving the less-prepared kids more time and attention from teachers -- in smaller classes -- might help them catch up.
But this turns out not to be the case. According to a new look at the STAR study by Northwestern professor Spyros Konstantopoulos in March's Elementary School Journal, smaller classes do boost all students' achievement levels, but they also increase the achievement gap. It turns out that smaller class sizes benefit high achievers more than lower achievers. So while all students do better, high achievers do much better, and lower achievers do a little better.
It's not clear why this would be, but it complicates the "small class size" argument. Since we know that reducing class size and tracking by ability increases test scores more than simply reducing class size alone (see the Kenyan study from a few weeks ago) it's possible that ability grouping could help close the achievement gap. But perhaps not -- one would have to test all these variables at the same time.
Personally, I think it's more important that everyone do better than that you close the achievement gap, but not everyone thinks that way. For instance, many politicians and others lament the "growing gap between the rich and poor" at every opportunity, even though almost everyone in the US is better off materially than they were 50 years ago. Sometimes people view relative position as more important than absolute position, and so we will see how the education community interprets these latest results. Anyway, it's food for thought.
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
The Tuition Game
I have a column in today's USA Today called "The Tuition Game." The piece talks about recent big changes in financial aid at some elite colleges, and the self-help requirement. My point is basically that -- given the size of endowments at elite universities these days, and their newly generous aid packages -- it's interesting that these colleges still drum students themselves for token contributions. Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, etc., all require that kids on financial aid work 7-12 hours per week, and often over the summer, to contribute financially to their own education.
Let me say right up front that there is absolutely nothing wrong with this. One of the reasons I think kids don't take high school so seriously is they don't have to work to pay for it. I fully approve of kids working while going to college. But given that elite colleges don't need the money a kid working 10 hours a week will cough up, it's important to realize that this is a philosophical choice more than anything else. Elite colleges believe that kids on financial aid should work in the cafeteria, answer phones at the campus center, deliver newspapers, or whatever other jobs are available on campus in order to earn their keep.
But if Harvard, Yale, and the others believe it's good for kids on aid to work to pay for their education, why don't they think all kids should work for their education? One of the biggest benefits of an elite education is the connections you forge with classmates during non-class hours. If kids on aid are working all the time, and wealthier kids are not, it contributes to an already-too-prevalent class divide on elite campuses.
I'd like to see these elite colleges require everyone to work to earn their keep. There's no reason not to; tuition represents only about 60% of the cost of a student's education at private universities, so every student is -- to some degree-- on financial aid. I see no reason that there should be a distinction between kids on obvious financial aid and those on less obvious aid. Furthermore, private colleges can ask for whatever they want. They could require all students to learn origami for graduation if they felt like it. You can always go elsewhere.
For an example of a college that does have a work requirement, I highlight Berea College in Kentucky. This fascinating institution has less of a class divide issue because, well, all students are from families earning less than about $50,000 a year. The college charges no tuition, and to keep costs low, asks all students to work what comes out to about 10-15 hours a week. Berea administrators have found that this requirement boosts community and keeps students academically engaged. On the whole, I think those are pretty good outcomes.
Let me say right up front that there is absolutely nothing wrong with this. One of the reasons I think kids don't take high school so seriously is they don't have to work to pay for it. I fully approve of kids working while going to college. But given that elite colleges don't need the money a kid working 10 hours a week will cough up, it's important to realize that this is a philosophical choice more than anything else. Elite colleges believe that kids on financial aid should work in the cafeteria, answer phones at the campus center, deliver newspapers, or whatever other jobs are available on campus in order to earn their keep.
But if Harvard, Yale, and the others believe it's good for kids on aid to work to pay for their education, why don't they think all kids should work for their education? One of the biggest benefits of an elite education is the connections you forge with classmates during non-class hours. If kids on aid are working all the time, and wealthier kids are not, it contributes to an already-too-prevalent class divide on elite campuses.
I'd like to see these elite colleges require everyone to work to earn their keep. There's no reason not to; tuition represents only about 60% of the cost of a student's education at private universities, so every student is -- to some degree-- on financial aid. I see no reason that there should be a distinction between kids on obvious financial aid and those on less obvious aid. Furthermore, private colleges can ask for whatever they want. They could require all students to learn origami for graduation if they felt like it. You can always go elsewhere.
For an example of a college that does have a work requirement, I highlight Berea College in Kentucky. This fascinating institution has less of a class divide issue because, well, all students are from families earning less than about $50,000 a year. The college charges no tuition, and to keep costs low, asks all students to work what comes out to about 10-15 hours a week. Berea administrators have found that this requirement boosts community and keeps students academically engaged. On the whole, I think those are pretty good outcomes.
Monday, March 24, 2008
A birthday party for a budding scientist
I subscribe to a rather humorous number of magazines, one of which, Cookie, is extremely humorous in its own right. Written for a small, urban demographic of well-to-do moms, it's full of tips on taking your kids to Sweden, dressing them in Kenneth Cole, and sporting Tod's or Chanel rain boots yourself when school drop-off time looks like it will be a bit overcast.
Of course, moms who take the kids to Sweden will not be content to merely send the kids to Chuck E. Cheese's for a birthday party. They want something a little more fun, authentic, and possibly educational. Which leads me to the way-cool "Good Chemistry" birthday party idea featured in the April issue, which even families who aren't into Chanel rain boots will enjoy.
We start with the outfits. Cookie recommends handing out safety glasses ($6 from stevespanglerscience.com) and lab coats ($24 with embroidered names from labwear.com). Kids can sip juice from flasks ($3.50 from homesciencetools.com). They can also eat Jell-O made in Petri dishes ($5.50 for 20 from homesciencetools.com). As Cookie explains, "Jell-O is a scientific wonder in itself...gelatin powder is made of long molecule chains. When you add hot water, those chains break. But as the mixture cools, the molecules rebond around pockets of water, resulting in that wiggly consistency."
No lab party is complete without goo and other crazy substances, so Cookie recommends setting up three "experiments." The first involves making snow from polymers that expand in liquid (purchase Insta-Snow Powder from stevespanglerscience.com). You can also make slime -- a non-Newtonian fluid which can behave like both a liquid and a solid -- from the Atomic Shaker Slime kit (also from stevespanlerscience.com). To make test-tube lava lamps, order jumbo test tubes from the same Steve Spangler Science, and fill halfway with water, and halfway with vegetable oil (perhaps squeezed from wash bottles; $2.25 each at homesciencetools.com). Drop in Alka-Seltzer and food coloring and watch what happens.
A little over a year ago on this blog, we discussed the decline of home chemistry sets. Many scientists got their start by blowing things up in their garages, something that -- in this age of liability and worries about crystal meth labs -- is becoming increasingly rare. I'm not saying that you need strong oxidizers to make a good party, and certainly making goo isn't particularly intense as science lessons go. But kids don't get to do much hands-on these days in school, and there's always this idea that science is this strange, slightly dangerous foreign thing. A birthday party like this makes it cool. So kudos to Cookie for sharing the idea.
Of course, moms who take the kids to Sweden will not be content to merely send the kids to Chuck E. Cheese's for a birthday party. They want something a little more fun, authentic, and possibly educational. Which leads me to the way-cool "Good Chemistry" birthday party idea featured in the April issue, which even families who aren't into Chanel rain boots will enjoy.
We start with the outfits. Cookie recommends handing out safety glasses ($6 from stevespanglerscience.com) and lab coats ($24 with embroidered names from labwear.com). Kids can sip juice from flasks ($3.50 from homesciencetools.com). They can also eat Jell-O made in Petri dishes ($5.50 for 20 from homesciencetools.com). As Cookie explains, "Jell-O is a scientific wonder in itself...gelatin powder is made of long molecule chains. When you add hot water, those chains break. But as the mixture cools, the molecules rebond around pockets of water, resulting in that wiggly consistency."
No lab party is complete without goo and other crazy substances, so Cookie recommends setting up three "experiments." The first involves making snow from polymers that expand in liquid (purchase Insta-Snow Powder from stevespanglerscience.com). You can also make slime -- a non-Newtonian fluid which can behave like both a liquid and a solid -- from the Atomic Shaker Slime kit (also from stevespanlerscience.com). To make test-tube lava lamps, order jumbo test tubes from the same Steve Spangler Science, and fill halfway with water, and halfway with vegetable oil (perhaps squeezed from wash bottles; $2.25 each at homesciencetools.com). Drop in Alka-Seltzer and food coloring and watch what happens.
A little over a year ago on this blog, we discussed the decline of home chemistry sets. Many scientists got their start by blowing things up in their garages, something that -- in this age of liability and worries about crystal meth labs -- is becoming increasingly rare. I'm not saying that you need strong oxidizers to make a good party, and certainly making goo isn't particularly intense as science lessons go. But kids don't get to do much hands-on these days in school, and there's always this idea that science is this strange, slightly dangerous foreign thing. A birthday party like this makes it cool. So kudos to Cookie for sharing the idea.
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Intel, part 2
An article in the New York Times from two weeks ago confirms that contests such as the Intel Science Talent Search actually do inspire high schools to beef up their science offerings -- including their laboratory offerings. One might expect this in top-notch districts with buckets of extra money. But, in fact, Intel is even sparking such a renaissance in less well-to-do districts. You can read the article, "A Science Prodigy in an Unlikely Place," here.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Seeking Intel/Westinghouse Winners and Finalists
Last week, Intel and the Society for Science and the Public announced the winners of the 2008 Intel Talent Search. You can read the announcement here.
(A few of these folks are familiar faces to those who have been following the Davidson Fellows awards over the past few years. First place winner Shivani Sud was a 2006 Davidson Fellow Laureate, and second place winner Graham Van Schaik was a 2007 Davidson Fellow who received a $10,000 award).
Over the past several years, awards like Intel and Davidson have changed the name of the game when it comes to high school science projects. Suffice to say, the vinegar and baking soda volcano won't cut it anymore... The existence of these awards creates incentives for high school students to do independent lab-based research. Hopefully many will leverage the experience to continue in science research-based careers.
Which leads me to my main point on this blog post -- what are former Intel (or Westinghouse, who used to sponsor the competition) winners up to these days? I suppose some are in science. Some are probably working in finance or consulting. Some are probably caring for children, and some are doing other things. The Society for Science and the Public website lists the winners back to 1998, but I suspect that -- academic training taking as long as it does these days -- many of these folks are still in school. I would love to track down some Westinghouse winners from earlier days. What have they learned about building a scientific career after their initial success? What are the joys and woes of science -- or if they left science, why did they do so? What advice would they give to young scientists? What was good and bad about the way they learned science in school?
If anyone has any information on finding former winners and finalists, or if you are one, please email me at lvanderkam at yahoo dot com. Thanks!
(A few of these folks are familiar faces to those who have been following the Davidson Fellows awards over the past few years. First place winner Shivani Sud was a 2006 Davidson Fellow Laureate, and second place winner Graham Van Schaik was a 2007 Davidson Fellow who received a $10,000 award).
Over the past several years, awards like Intel and Davidson have changed the name of the game when it comes to high school science projects. Suffice to say, the vinegar and baking soda volcano won't cut it anymore... The existence of these awards creates incentives for high school students to do independent lab-based research. Hopefully many will leverage the experience to continue in science research-based careers.
Which leads me to my main point on this blog post -- what are former Intel (or Westinghouse, who used to sponsor the competition) winners up to these days? I suppose some are in science. Some are probably working in finance or consulting. Some are probably caring for children, and some are doing other things. The Society for Science and the Public website lists the winners back to 1998, but I suspect that -- academic training taking as long as it does these days -- many of these folks are still in school. I would love to track down some Westinghouse winners from earlier days. What have they learned about building a scientific career after their initial success? What are the joys and woes of science -- or if they left science, why did they do so? What advice would they give to young scientists? What was good and bad about the way they learned science in school?
If anyone has any information on finding former winners and finalists, or if you are one, please email me at lvanderkam at yahoo dot com. Thanks!
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Tracking: The Kenyan Experience
"Tracking," or "Ability Grouping," or "Readiness Grouping" as we sometimes call it here, is a controversial subject. While most schools engage in it to some extent (at least for reading groups and math), many educators aren't entirely comfortable with its broad use. The "diamond in the rough" concept is deeply ingrained in the American imagination, and people worry that an unpolished kid consigned to the Vo-Tech track will be forever limited in his achievements by the distinction.
So I'm always interested to see studies that examine whether tracking has a negative effect on children assigned to the "slower" track. The answer, according to one recent study of Kenyan school children, is a resounding no. In fact, not only do students in both higher and lower tracks do better on tests than their peers in heterogeneous classrooms, the teachers are actually more likely to show up for class.
This fascinating finding is part of a larger study looking at all sorts of school reform ideas that occasionally gain followings here in the US as well. For instance, in Kenya, reducing class size in and of itself did not boost test scores (though to be fair, the reduction was from 80 students to 40 per teacher -- a reduction to, say, 15, might have produced more results). However, reducing class size, coupled with instituting a 2-track system, raised test scores by 0.25 to 0.31 standard deviations, and not just in the upper track. "Both lower and higher achieving students benefited from tracking," the paper notes. Indeed, students in the lower track were more likely to be promoted to the next grade than their peers in the non-tracked classrooms.
The paper also puts to rest a worry about kids right on the dividing line between tracks. Students who scored in the 5th or 6th deciles (meaning the margin of error on their scores could have put them in either track) improved equally well whichever track they were assigned to, compared with their heterogeneously grouped peers. "The average quality of peers does not appear to matter, while homogeneity does," the authors write.
Perhaps one of the reasons kids learned more in the tracked classes is that the teachers actually showed up in the classrooms more often. From the data in the study, it sounds like Kenya has a reasonable problem with absenteeism in its schools. But civil service teachers were 8.6 percentage points more likely to be in class teaching in tracked schools than in non-tracked schools. "One interpretation is that teaching is easier and thus more pleasant when students have less heterogeneous levels of academic preparation," the authors postulate.
As we've discussed on this blog before, excellent, professional, brilliant teachers can teach a class of kids at various levels, and achieve great results for most of them. Unfortunately, excellent, professional, brilliant teachers are not as numerous as we might like for a variety of reasons including pay, training, working conditions, etc. Merely decent teachers have a harder time teaching kids whose readiness levels span the full bell curve. Teaching kids of vastly differing levels is frustrating and exhausting. In Kenya, the response is to not show up. In American schools, the result can be disengagement and mediocre results.
All of which leads me to this conclusion: It's one thing for de-trackers to talk about some ideal world where our learning communities are little democracies where students learn collaboratively and bring along slower learners out of a sense of shared responsibility. But most of us live in the real world. And the reality is that tracking fails better. If you get a mediocre teacher, you can still get OK results. That's what the Kenyan experiment found.
So I'm always interested to see studies that examine whether tracking has a negative effect on children assigned to the "slower" track. The answer, according to one recent study of Kenyan school children, is a resounding no. In fact, not only do students in both higher and lower tracks do better on tests than their peers in heterogeneous classrooms, the teachers are actually more likely to show up for class.
This fascinating finding is part of a larger study looking at all sorts of school reform ideas that occasionally gain followings here in the US as well. For instance, in Kenya, reducing class size in and of itself did not boost test scores (though to be fair, the reduction was from 80 students to 40 per teacher -- a reduction to, say, 15, might have produced more results). However, reducing class size, coupled with instituting a 2-track system, raised test scores by 0.25 to 0.31 standard deviations, and not just in the upper track. "Both lower and higher achieving students benefited from tracking," the paper notes. Indeed, students in the lower track were more likely to be promoted to the next grade than their peers in the non-tracked classrooms.
The paper also puts to rest a worry about kids right on the dividing line between tracks. Students who scored in the 5th or 6th deciles (meaning the margin of error on their scores could have put them in either track) improved equally well whichever track they were assigned to, compared with their heterogeneously grouped peers. "The average quality of peers does not appear to matter, while homogeneity does," the authors write.
Perhaps one of the reasons kids learned more in the tracked classes is that the teachers actually showed up in the classrooms more often. From the data in the study, it sounds like Kenya has a reasonable problem with absenteeism in its schools. But civil service teachers were 8.6 percentage points more likely to be in class teaching in tracked schools than in non-tracked schools. "One interpretation is that teaching is easier and thus more pleasant when students have less heterogeneous levels of academic preparation," the authors postulate.
As we've discussed on this blog before, excellent, professional, brilliant teachers can teach a class of kids at various levels, and achieve great results for most of them. Unfortunately, excellent, professional, brilliant teachers are not as numerous as we might like for a variety of reasons including pay, training, working conditions, etc. Merely decent teachers have a harder time teaching kids whose readiness levels span the full bell curve. Teaching kids of vastly differing levels is frustrating and exhausting. In Kenya, the response is to not show up. In American schools, the result can be disengagement and mediocre results.
All of which leads me to this conclusion: It's one thing for de-trackers to talk about some ideal world where our learning communities are little democracies where students learn collaboratively and bring along slower learners out of a sense of shared responsibility. But most of us live in the real world. And the reality is that tracking fails better. If you get a mediocre teacher, you can still get OK results. That's what the Kenyan experiment found.
Friday, March 07, 2008
Math Doesn't Suck!
So this week I found myself reading actress and mathematician Danica McKellar's new book, Math Doesn't Suck: How to Survive Middle School Math without Losing Your Mind or Breaking a Nail. I am not entirely sure what to think of it.
The cheery blue cover (and cute photo of the lovely Ms. McKellar, of Wonder Years and West Wing fame) bears a striking resemblance to Teen magazine. Cover lines scream "Are you a math-o-phobe? Take this quiz!" "Horoscope inside!" and "Do you still have a crush on him?" This last line is somewhat misleading; there is very little about crushes covered in this book. The crush reference comes from an intro to the Greatest Common Factor section, in which McKellar notes that often times, it seems like you have a crush on one guy and then...a few months later you have a crush on another guy who actually has a lot in common with the first guy. OHMIGOD!! This is kind of like math, because numbers have a lot of factors in common too and...
Math Doesn't Suck continues on in this fashion as it covers decimals and percents, fractions, basic algebra, etc. There are various drawings and notes interspersed throughout; repeated "What Do You Have to Say?" text boxes contain such assurances as "Smart girls are cool. They are generally fun to be around and good to have conversations with," -- Mackenzie, 19.
Overall, the book is fun and, as UCLA math prof Veeravalli Varadarajan notes on the back cover, "A brilliant and successful effort to bring a little glamour to the teaching of mathematics." There's nothing wrong with trying to make math accessible and interesting to girls. Math Doesn't Suck explains the reasoning behind problems and why these concepts make sense in the real world.
But there are also a few problems with this book. The biggie for me is... this is middle school math? One of the reasons we're so far behind other nations mathematically is that 7th and 8th graders are still learning fractions and percents. I maintain that reasonably bright kids should be able to learn pretty much all pre-algebra math by 6th grade. And yet, as this book shows, much of the middle school math curriculum around this country remains more about marking time than anything else. This is not McKellar's fault, but she could have thrown some more geometry, statistics, slightly higher level algebra, etc., into the mix.
The constant references to being "smart" or "dumb" are also annoying. As we've talked about on this blog before, there's a danger to talking much about kids' abilities as if they were fixed, unchanging labels. Kids who think of themselves as "smart" -- as a state of being -- become afraid of being "dumb." And so they don't like to try hard things. There's no reason to think that assurances to girls that it's OK to be smart should be exempted from this rule.
And finally...as a girl who never needed her math wrapped up in pink paper, I worry that this book will feed into the stereotype that girls are only interested in math insofar as it relates to horoscopes, crushes, babysitting, clothes, cell phones, etc. Someone who thought girls were not naturally good at math would not be dissuaded from that thought by a book offering constant reassurances that you can do this! Really! You're a smart girl! Math is OK!
That said, if Danica McKellar gets a few more girls interested in math, or helps kids understand concepts despite boring or incompetent teachers, then she will have done a real service. So I hope there's a lot of that going on. Heaven knows we need it.
The cheery blue cover (and cute photo of the lovely Ms. McKellar, of Wonder Years and West Wing fame) bears a striking resemblance to Teen magazine. Cover lines scream "Are you a math-o-phobe? Take this quiz!" "Horoscope inside!" and "Do you still have a crush on him?" This last line is somewhat misleading; there is very little about crushes covered in this book. The crush reference comes from an intro to the Greatest Common Factor section, in which McKellar notes that often times, it seems like you have a crush on one guy and then...a few months later you have a crush on another guy who actually has a lot in common with the first guy. OHMIGOD!! This is kind of like math, because numbers have a lot of factors in common too and...
Math Doesn't Suck continues on in this fashion as it covers decimals and percents, fractions, basic algebra, etc. There are various drawings and notes interspersed throughout; repeated "What Do You Have to Say?" text boxes contain such assurances as "Smart girls are cool. They are generally fun to be around and good to have conversations with," -- Mackenzie, 19.
Overall, the book is fun and, as UCLA math prof Veeravalli Varadarajan notes on the back cover, "A brilliant and successful effort to bring a little glamour to the teaching of mathematics." There's nothing wrong with trying to make math accessible and interesting to girls. Math Doesn't Suck explains the reasoning behind problems and why these concepts make sense in the real world.
But there are also a few problems with this book. The biggie for me is... this is middle school math? One of the reasons we're so far behind other nations mathematically is that 7th and 8th graders are still learning fractions and percents. I maintain that reasonably bright kids should be able to learn pretty much all pre-algebra math by 6th grade. And yet, as this book shows, much of the middle school math curriculum around this country remains more about marking time than anything else. This is not McKellar's fault, but she could have thrown some more geometry, statistics, slightly higher level algebra, etc., into the mix.
The constant references to being "smart" or "dumb" are also annoying. As we've talked about on this blog before, there's a danger to talking much about kids' abilities as if they were fixed, unchanging labels. Kids who think of themselves as "smart" -- as a state of being -- become afraid of being "dumb." And so they don't like to try hard things. There's no reason to think that assurances to girls that it's OK to be smart should be exempted from this rule.
And finally...as a girl who never needed her math wrapped up in pink paper, I worry that this book will feed into the stereotype that girls are only interested in math insofar as it relates to horoscopes, crushes, babysitting, clothes, cell phones, etc. Someone who thought girls were not naturally good at math would not be dissuaded from that thought by a book offering constant reassurances that you can do this! Really! You're a smart girl! Math is OK!
That said, if Danica McKellar gets a few more girls interested in math, or helps kids understand concepts despite boring or incompetent teachers, then she will have done a real service. So I hope there's a lot of that going on. Heaven knows we need it.
Monday, March 03, 2008
Learning to Lie
The cover story of Feb. 18th’s New York Magazine (no, not the Lindsay Lohan one) is a fascinating look, by writer Po Bronson, on "Learning to Lie."
For all we value honesty, almost all children lie at some point. Bronson postulates that children learn this habit from their parents. They see us lie to telemarketers, lie to be polite when people give inappropriate gifts, lie to avoid conflict, etc. Research shows that fear of punishment does not make children lie less. Rather, they learn to lie less as they learn to think about how other people might feel – in other words, as they become socialized to be empathetic.
To curtail the habit, Bronson recommends making sure that even small lies are noticed, and assuring the child that telling the truth will be better (because you won’t react unreasonably). You should also avoid entrapping kids and putting them in positions to lie unnecessarily. Bronson recounts noticing his 3-and-a-half-year-old daughter scribbling on the dining room table with a washable marker. “Disapprovingly, I asked ‘Did you draw on the table, Thia?’ In the past, she would have answered honestly, but my tone gave away that she’d done something wrong. Immediately, I wished I could retract the question. I should have just reminded her not to write on the table, slipped newspaper under her coloring book, and washed the ink away. Instead, I had done just as [McGill University child development professor Victoria] Talwar had warned against. ‘No, I didn’t,’ my daughter said, lying to me for the first time.”
The article in general is worth a read, but most fascinating for our purposes is the link between intelligence and early lying. “Bright kids – those who do better on other academic indicators – are able to start lying at 2 or 3,” Bronson writes. The article quotes Talwar saying that “lying is related to intelligence.” While truthfulness is a virtue, lying requires skill. As Bronson notes, “A child who is going to lie must recognize the truth, intellectually conceive of an alternate reality, and be able to convincingly sell that new reality to someone else. Therefore, lying demands both advanced cognitive development and social skills that honesty simply doesn’t require… That puts parents in the position of being either damned or blessed, depending on how they choose to look at it. If your 4-year-old is a good liar, it’s a strong sign she’s got brains. And it’s the smart, savvy kid who’s most at risk of becoming a habitual liar.”
I’m curious if readers of this blog have found that to be the case. Are gifted toddlers capable of telling very tall tales? How do you stop them?
For all we value honesty, almost all children lie at some point. Bronson postulates that children learn this habit from their parents. They see us lie to telemarketers, lie to be polite when people give inappropriate gifts, lie to avoid conflict, etc. Research shows that fear of punishment does not make children lie less. Rather, they learn to lie less as they learn to think about how other people might feel – in other words, as they become socialized to be empathetic.
To curtail the habit, Bronson recommends making sure that even small lies are noticed, and assuring the child that telling the truth will be better (because you won’t react unreasonably). You should also avoid entrapping kids and putting them in positions to lie unnecessarily. Bronson recounts noticing his 3-and-a-half-year-old daughter scribbling on the dining room table with a washable marker. “Disapprovingly, I asked ‘Did you draw on the table, Thia?’ In the past, she would have answered honestly, but my tone gave away that she’d done something wrong. Immediately, I wished I could retract the question. I should have just reminded her not to write on the table, slipped newspaper under her coloring book, and washed the ink away. Instead, I had done just as [McGill University child development professor Victoria] Talwar had warned against. ‘No, I didn’t,’ my daughter said, lying to me for the first time.”
The article in general is worth a read, but most fascinating for our purposes is the link between intelligence and early lying. “Bright kids – those who do better on other academic indicators – are able to start lying at 2 or 3,” Bronson writes. The article quotes Talwar saying that “lying is related to intelligence.” While truthfulness is a virtue, lying requires skill. As Bronson notes, “A child who is going to lie must recognize the truth, intellectually conceive of an alternate reality, and be able to convincingly sell that new reality to someone else. Therefore, lying demands both advanced cognitive development and social skills that honesty simply doesn’t require… That puts parents in the position of being either damned or blessed, depending on how they choose to look at it. If your 4-year-old is a good liar, it’s a strong sign she’s got brains. And it’s the smart, savvy kid who’s most at risk of becoming a habitual liar.”
I’m curious if readers of this blog have found that to be the case. Are gifted toddlers capable of telling very tall tales? How do you stop them?
Friday, February 29, 2008
What Makes Finnish Kids So Smart?
The Wall Street Journal has a fascinating story in today's Weekend Journal section on the Finnish education system, and "What Makes Finnish Kids So Smart?"
This strange little Nordic country, whose language is very different from neighboring Norway and Sweden (or anywhere else for that matter), has posted scores at the very top of international skills comparisons. The Program for International Assessment (PISA), which tested 15-year-olds, placed Finns at the top of the heap in science. Only Taiwanese students did better in math; only the South Koreans did better in reading. American students didn't come close to their Finnish counterparts in understanding these concepts. Indeed, the Wall Street Journal tells the story of a Finnish senior, Elina Lamponen, who studied abroad at Colon High School in Michigan. When she came back to Finland, she had to repeat the grade.
International comparisons aren't particularly useful if all they inspire you to do is beat yourself up. The best thing to do is to figure out what other countries do well, and then figure out if these best practices can be implemented elsewhere. We've looked at Singapore math on this blog. What about Finnish math, science and reading? The Wall Street Journal attempts to answer these questions.
Unfortunately, The Wall Street Journal notes several times in the article that there are no gifted classes in Finland. This is misleading. There aren't "pull-out" type classes featuring Robin Hood, bugs, Egyptology, the culture of Japan, etc. But according to this report of gifted education in Europe, Finnish parents have the right to enroll their children in school early if they want. Many of the elementary schools are ungraded, which allows children to accelerate.
The WSJ offers a few other ideas about Finnish educational success. One is that kids learn to read very early because American television and movies tend to have Finnish subtitles, rather than dubbing. If you want to know what's going on, you have to learn to read. Few American kids feel so motivated.
The students are relatively homogeneous, both in terms of race and economic status (there's not much of a Finnish underclass). Some people cite the relatively relaxed educational environment as a plus. Students and teachers may call each other by their first names. There aren't a lot of rules. There also aren't any truly elite universities, so the competition to get into a good school isn't so intense (if there are any Finnish readers of this blog, I'd love to hear if that's true).
But here's what I think is the key point, from the WSJ and my other reading: The education culture in Finland is one of excellence and intense individualization. Finnish teachers are expected to customize lessons for students. As the WSJ quotes one education expert saying, "In most countries, education feels like a car factory. In Finland, the teachers are the entrepreneurs." And they are good entrepreneurs. In Finland, teachers are trained extensively. They must have master's degrees, and 40 people apply for every job. They earn about the same as their American counterparts. But, through treating teachers like professionals, and only choosing the best, Finland has managed to get an excellent teaching corps capable of individualizing lessons for slow learners and quick learners alike.
Another note: Finland spends less per student than the U.S. does.
Unfortunately, I worry that people reading the WSJ article and looking to take away ideas for educational improvement in the US will only seize on the "no gifted classes" idea. That would be a shame. In an environment where the teachers are uniformly excellent, where individual lessons are customized and where acceleration is possible, you don't necessarily need specific gifted classes. But I don't see many American education reform efforts combining all these elements yet.
This strange little Nordic country, whose language is very different from neighboring Norway and Sweden (or anywhere else for that matter), has posted scores at the very top of international skills comparisons. The Program for International Assessment (PISA), which tested 15-year-olds, placed Finns at the top of the heap in science. Only Taiwanese students did better in math; only the South Koreans did better in reading. American students didn't come close to their Finnish counterparts in understanding these concepts. Indeed, the Wall Street Journal tells the story of a Finnish senior, Elina Lamponen, who studied abroad at Colon High School in Michigan. When she came back to Finland, she had to repeat the grade.
International comparisons aren't particularly useful if all they inspire you to do is beat yourself up. The best thing to do is to figure out what other countries do well, and then figure out if these best practices can be implemented elsewhere. We've looked at Singapore math on this blog. What about Finnish math, science and reading? The Wall Street Journal attempts to answer these questions.
Unfortunately, The Wall Street Journal notes several times in the article that there are no gifted classes in Finland. This is misleading. There aren't "pull-out" type classes featuring Robin Hood, bugs, Egyptology, the culture of Japan, etc. But according to this report of gifted education in Europe, Finnish parents have the right to enroll their children in school early if they want. Many of the elementary schools are ungraded, which allows children to accelerate.
The WSJ offers a few other ideas about Finnish educational success. One is that kids learn to read very early because American television and movies tend to have Finnish subtitles, rather than dubbing. If you want to know what's going on, you have to learn to read. Few American kids feel so motivated.
The students are relatively homogeneous, both in terms of race and economic status (there's not much of a Finnish underclass). Some people cite the relatively relaxed educational environment as a plus. Students and teachers may call each other by their first names. There aren't a lot of rules. There also aren't any truly elite universities, so the competition to get into a good school isn't so intense (if there are any Finnish readers of this blog, I'd love to hear if that's true).
But here's what I think is the key point, from the WSJ and my other reading: The education culture in Finland is one of excellence and intense individualization. Finnish teachers are expected to customize lessons for students. As the WSJ quotes one education expert saying, "In most countries, education feels like a car factory. In Finland, the teachers are the entrepreneurs." And they are good entrepreneurs. In Finland, teachers are trained extensively. They must have master's degrees, and 40 people apply for every job. They earn about the same as their American counterparts. But, through treating teachers like professionals, and only choosing the best, Finland has managed to get an excellent teaching corps capable of individualizing lessons for slow learners and quick learners alike.
Another note: Finland spends less per student than the U.S. does.
Unfortunately, I worry that people reading the WSJ article and looking to take away ideas for educational improvement in the US will only seize on the "no gifted classes" idea. That would be a shame. In an environment where the teachers are uniformly excellent, where individual lessons are customized and where acceleration is possible, you don't necessarily need specific gifted classes. But I don't see many American education reform efforts combining all these elements yet.
Sunday, February 24, 2008
A Federal Priority
Over the past few months, many parents of gifted kids have written letters to their representatives imploring them to maintain funding levels for the Jacob K. Javits program -- the only federal funds appropriated for gifted education. Thanks to all their attention, the program will likely receive $7.5 million in federal funds for this upcoming fiscal year.
Unfortunately, the intentions of these parents -- and probably a lot of representatives who voted for this money -- are being completely thwarted by bureaucrats at the Department of Education.
Here's the story: While amounting to only a few dollars per gifted child in the U.S., the Javits program does do some good. It funds research on gifted education. The Department of Education also doles out a few grants from these funds to programs serving gifted children across the country.
This is where we get to the disturbing part of all this. During the annual grant-making process, various federal agencies alert the public, in something called The Federal Register, to what kinds of programs they are looking to fund. The Assistant Secretary of Elementary and Secondary Education recently published a "Notice of Proposed Priority" in the Federal Register about the Javits money.
Assistant Secretary Kerri L. Briggs (a native of Midland, TX) says she is seeking "to support the implementation of models with demonstrated effectiveness in identifying and serving gifted and talented students who are economically disadvantaged or limited English proficient, or who have disabilities, and who may not be identified and served through typical strategies for identifying gifted children. We intend the priority to increase the availability of proven approaches for increasing the number of students from underrepresented groups performing at high levels of academic achievement."
The explanation follows: "In 2007, 32 percent of all 4th grade public school students scored at or above the proficient level in reading on the National Assessment of Educational Progress, compared to only 17 percent of students who are eligible for free or reduced price lunch under the National School Lunch program (i.e., students who are economically disadvantaged), 13 percent of students with disabilities, and 7 percent of students with limited English proficiency. Students from these three groups are significantly underrepresented at or above proficient levels on the 8th grade reading and 4th and 8th grade mathematics assessments."
All of this is unfortunate and true. But here's the big question: What does that have to do with gifted education?
Done right, gifted programs should be educational interventions for students who cannot be well-served in traditional classrooms. If 32% of students score at or above proficient, this is hardly indicative of a level at which students need educational intervention. Most good gifted programs aim for the top 5%, or even the top 1-2% of children's test scores.
Second, there is much to be said for helping disadvantaged children achieve at high levels. Indeed, the whole No Child Left Behind Act is focused on making sure children from disadvantaged backgrounds don't fall behind children who enter school with more advantages. But gifted education is not about normal "high levels of academic achievement" or, frankly, about traditional achievement at all.
If a child from a disadvantaged background scores at the 75th percentile on a grade-level test one year, and then at the 85th percentile the next, that's wonderful. If she goes from B's and C's to A's on her report card, that deserves to be celebrated. But what about the child with a 160 IQ who's reading Harry Potter books at age 5, who then starts kindergarten and has to spend six hours a day in a class where everyone is learning letters? What happens when she refuses to do school work anymore, or when she loses interest in school in general because she's so bored?
Under the proposed Javits guidelines, this child -- who scores in the 99th percentile on any available grade level test -- is not a priority. She's not a priority if she's from a disadvantaged background (since hey, she's already been identified -- and thus is not served by programs aiming to increase representation). And she's particularly not a priority if she happens to be white and/or middle class.
No, the Javits priority this year is about increasing representation of under-represented groups in the top third of grade-level achievement tests. To say this misses the point is putting it mildly.
As we say over and over again on this blog, gifted education is not a reward -- a kind of awards ceremony where the kids on the stage should "look like America." It should not be a bonus recognition for a kid who does well in school, or works hard, or overcomes obstacles, or what have you. All those things are worth celebrating. But they are not the point of gifted education, which is about accommodating kids whose frenetic intelligence means their needs cannot be met in normal grade level classrooms. Gifted education should be about challenging these children to the extent of their abilities.
There's so much money allocated to No Child Left Behind, and so little allocated to gifted education, that it's adding insult to injury to take Javits and turn it into yet another close-the-achievement gap program. But that is precisely what our federal government has stated is its priority.
I don't know what Assistant Secretary Briggs has against gifted education. Maybe it's nothing sinister. But it's clear she doesn't get it.
Unfortunately, the intentions of these parents -- and probably a lot of representatives who voted for this money -- are being completely thwarted by bureaucrats at the Department of Education.
Here's the story: While amounting to only a few dollars per gifted child in the U.S., the Javits program does do some good. It funds research on gifted education. The Department of Education also doles out a few grants from these funds to programs serving gifted children across the country.
This is where we get to the disturbing part of all this. During the annual grant-making process, various federal agencies alert the public, in something called The Federal Register, to what kinds of programs they are looking to fund. The Assistant Secretary of Elementary and Secondary Education recently published a "Notice of Proposed Priority" in the Federal Register about the Javits money.
Assistant Secretary Kerri L. Briggs (a native of Midland, TX) says she is seeking "to support the implementation of models with demonstrated effectiveness in identifying and serving gifted and talented students who are economically disadvantaged or limited English proficient, or who have disabilities, and who may not be identified and served through typical strategies for identifying gifted children. We intend the priority to increase the availability of proven approaches for increasing the number of students from underrepresented groups performing at high levels of academic achievement."
The explanation follows: "In 2007, 32 percent of all 4th grade public school students scored at or above the proficient level in reading on the National Assessment of Educational Progress, compared to only 17 percent of students who are eligible for free or reduced price lunch under the National School Lunch program (i.e., students who are economically disadvantaged), 13 percent of students with disabilities, and 7 percent of students with limited English proficiency. Students from these three groups are significantly underrepresented at or above proficient levels on the 8th grade reading and 4th and 8th grade mathematics assessments."
All of this is unfortunate and true. But here's the big question: What does that have to do with gifted education?
Done right, gifted programs should be educational interventions for students who cannot be well-served in traditional classrooms. If 32% of students score at or above proficient, this is hardly indicative of a level at which students need educational intervention. Most good gifted programs aim for the top 5%, or even the top 1-2% of children's test scores.
Second, there is much to be said for helping disadvantaged children achieve at high levels. Indeed, the whole No Child Left Behind Act is focused on making sure children from disadvantaged backgrounds don't fall behind children who enter school with more advantages. But gifted education is not about normal "high levels of academic achievement" or, frankly, about traditional achievement at all.
If a child from a disadvantaged background scores at the 75th percentile on a grade-level test one year, and then at the 85th percentile the next, that's wonderful. If she goes from B's and C's to A's on her report card, that deserves to be celebrated. But what about the child with a 160 IQ who's reading Harry Potter books at age 5, who then starts kindergarten and has to spend six hours a day in a class where everyone is learning letters? What happens when she refuses to do school work anymore, or when she loses interest in school in general because she's so bored?
Under the proposed Javits guidelines, this child -- who scores in the 99th percentile on any available grade level test -- is not a priority. She's not a priority if she's from a disadvantaged background (since hey, she's already been identified -- and thus is not served by programs aiming to increase representation). And she's particularly not a priority if she happens to be white and/or middle class.
No, the Javits priority this year is about increasing representation of under-represented groups in the top third of grade-level achievement tests. To say this misses the point is putting it mildly.
As we say over and over again on this blog, gifted education is not a reward -- a kind of awards ceremony where the kids on the stage should "look like America." It should not be a bonus recognition for a kid who does well in school, or works hard, or overcomes obstacles, or what have you. All those things are worth celebrating. But they are not the point of gifted education, which is about accommodating kids whose frenetic intelligence means their needs cannot be met in normal grade level classrooms. Gifted education should be about challenging these children to the extent of their abilities.
There's so much money allocated to No Child Left Behind, and so little allocated to gifted education, that it's adding insult to injury to take Javits and turn it into yet another close-the-achievement gap program. But that is precisely what our federal government has stated is its priority.
I don't know what Assistant Secretary Briggs has against gifted education. Maybe it's nothing sinister. But it's clear she doesn't get it.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
More than a Dream
Gifted Exchange is primarily about gifted education, but we also like to cover education reform in general. As such, I've been trying to invite authors of new education books to share their messages with Gifted Exchange readers. This week, I'm happy to introduce you to G.R. Kearney, author of the new More than a Dream: The Cristo Rey Story.
Several years ago, as a new college graduate, G. R. began volunteering at a new Catholic school in inner-city Chicago. The school, called Cristo Rey (Spanish for "Christ the King") pledged to provide a prep school quality education for children of limited means. Their tuition would be primarily covered through a work-study program, in which students worked in corporate offices doing entry level jobs 1-2 days a week. I've written about my visits to these schools on this blog before; while the schools do not view gifted education per se as part of their mission (as G.R. points out, the most brilliant low-income children already have scholarship options at some great private prep schools) , there are lessons for everyone from watching a school grow. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has identified the Cristo Rey network of schools as an idea that seems to be working, and has funded scaling it up to almost 20 locations across the country.
*LV: How did you come to work at the Chicago CR school?
G.R. Kearney: I had the great privilege of helping to found a volunteer program at Cristo Rey in 1999, just a few months after I graduated from college. Two of my classmates from Georgetown University and I spent two years at Cristo Rey teaching, coaching, and driving school buses.
*What was the biggest growing pain for the school? What did you learn about education by watching a school grow?
It’s hard to identify just one growing pain. Cristo Rey is unique in that it seeks to provide private, high quality, college prep education to students who couldn’t otherwise afford it—many of the school’s students live below the poverty line. Figuring out a way to make the school work economically was a huge hurdle that ultimately led to the school’s revolutionary Corporate Internship Program.
Educationally, I think the biggest growing pain for the school was developing a curriculum that was student-centered and responsive to the needs of the community, but also cost-effective. From the start, Cristo Rey’s founders knew that a cookie cutter curriculum simply wouldn’t work in a neighborhood where dropout rates often exceeded 50%. Unfortunately, many of the young people in the predominantly Latino neighborhood simply weren’t engaged in school. If Cristo Rey were to succeed, it would have to be different and would have to find a way to connect with and engage its students in the leaning process.
Cristo Rey’s original faculty and staff did incredible things from a curricular perspective. They were using block scheduling and encouraging teachers from different content areas to co-teach classes in an effort to help students understand the connections between subjects. The school also used a dual language curriculum that gave students a chance to study in both English and Spanish. The curriculum was truly cutting edge.
It was also expensive. Because teachers went to such great lengths to custom build the classes they taught, they spent less time in the classroom than teachers at any comparable school. This was a problem in a school that had to, by virtue of the population it served and its revenue model, operate on a lean budget. Balancing those two competing interests was a source of tension at the school for many years.
What did I learn? If students don’t want to be there and don’t have some desire to learn, then it’s tough to make a school work well. This desire takes makes forms. It can be a response to motivation from parents or peers. It can be internal. It can be a love for learning. Unfortunately, in low income communities, motivation from parents and peers is sometimes lacking. Schools that serve students who don’t necessarily desire an education need to prove to students that education is worth it before they can even begin to teach.
*We've been discussing on this blog that public schools in the era of NCLB are failing their brightest lower-income students "virtually as a matter of policy." What did CR schools do to challenge particularly bright kids?
Cristo Rey schools encourage those kids to go to other schools. Cristo Rey was founded for those students who didn’t have the academic background to get into the city’s elite high schools — private or public. Cristo Rey’s administrators still tell students that, if they can get into Whitney Young, Walter Payton, or St. Ignatius, they should go there.
Cristo Rey wasn’t founded to educate the best and brightest students, but rather to give those middle of the road students who might be at a higher risk of dropping out or failing to prepare adequately for post-secondary education with the best education possible.
Initially, there was no tracking at Cristo Rey. It’s my understanding, though, that there has been a realization that the school does attract students with very different aptitudes and skill levels and, as a result, the school has begun to experiment with tracking.
* How does working in an office environment change children's perceptions of the adult world?
Enormously. Tom Vander Ark, who used to run the education arm of the Gates Foundation and now runs the X Prize Foundation, has praised Cristo Rey schools for giving students “an opportunity to spend time with adults they can imagine becoming.”
Many of Cristo Rey’s freshman students have a somewhat narrow world view. For the most part they come from blue collar families and, in many cases, they spend very little time outside of the neighborhood. Their sense of the future and their potential is sometimes limited by what they’ve seen. They simply don’t know what is out there.
Going to work instead of going to class five schools days every month opens the students’ eyes to another part of the world. It’s not uncommon for a Cristo Rey student to graduate from high school having worked at a bank, a law firm, a consulting company, and an advertising agency. Talk about expanding horizons.
I think the experience of working to earn their own tuition also gives the Cristo Rey students a profound understanding of the sacrifices their parents make on a daily basis to provide for their families.
* If a parent isn't near a CR school (or the family wouldn't qualify) is there some way to recreate some of the adult mentoring that comes from the corporate work-study program?
Great question. I think any young person, regardless of their station in life, benefits from relationships with adults. Such relationships help students and young people to see that the world is much bigger, and often more exciting, than is sometimes apparent to them.
As you said, not every family qualifies for Cristo Rey schools—only low-income families are allowed to apply. To answer your question, though, yes, I think there are ways to replicate some of the mentoring that takes place between students and adults through the work program. Many communities have mentoring programs. If your readers’ communities don’t, maybe they can create such programs. Summer internships or after school jobs can also be a good way for students to interact with adults. You may also think about inviting adults from the community in to your child’s school to talk about what they do at work or how their educations have impacted their lives. It could be a regular series. I think, as the students get older, this becomes more and more valuable.
Several years ago, as a new college graduate, G. R. began volunteering at a new Catholic school in inner-city Chicago. The school, called Cristo Rey (Spanish for "Christ the King") pledged to provide a prep school quality education for children of limited means. Their tuition would be primarily covered through a work-study program, in which students worked in corporate offices doing entry level jobs 1-2 days a week. I've written about my visits to these schools on this blog before; while the schools do not view gifted education per se as part of their mission (as G.R. points out, the most brilliant low-income children already have scholarship options at some great private prep schools) , there are lessons for everyone from watching a school grow. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has identified the Cristo Rey network of schools as an idea that seems to be working, and has funded scaling it up to almost 20 locations across the country.
*LV: How did you come to work at the Chicago CR school?
G.R. Kearney: I had the great privilege of helping to found a volunteer program at Cristo Rey in 1999, just a few months after I graduated from college. Two of my classmates from Georgetown University and I spent two years at Cristo Rey teaching, coaching, and driving school buses.
*What was the biggest growing pain for the school? What did you learn about education by watching a school grow?
It’s hard to identify just one growing pain. Cristo Rey is unique in that it seeks to provide private, high quality, college prep education to students who couldn’t otherwise afford it—many of the school’s students live below the poverty line. Figuring out a way to make the school work economically was a huge hurdle that ultimately led to the school’s revolutionary Corporate Internship Program.
Educationally, I think the biggest growing pain for the school was developing a curriculum that was student-centered and responsive to the needs of the community, but also cost-effective. From the start, Cristo Rey’s founders knew that a cookie cutter curriculum simply wouldn’t work in a neighborhood where dropout rates often exceeded 50%. Unfortunately, many of the young people in the predominantly Latino neighborhood simply weren’t engaged in school. If Cristo Rey were to succeed, it would have to be different and would have to find a way to connect with and engage its students in the leaning process.
Cristo Rey’s original faculty and staff did incredible things from a curricular perspective. They were using block scheduling and encouraging teachers from different content areas to co-teach classes in an effort to help students understand the connections between subjects. The school also used a dual language curriculum that gave students a chance to study in both English and Spanish. The curriculum was truly cutting edge.
It was also expensive. Because teachers went to such great lengths to custom build the classes they taught, they spent less time in the classroom than teachers at any comparable school. This was a problem in a school that had to, by virtue of the population it served and its revenue model, operate on a lean budget. Balancing those two competing interests was a source of tension at the school for many years.
What did I learn? If students don’t want to be there and don’t have some desire to learn, then it’s tough to make a school work well. This desire takes makes forms. It can be a response to motivation from parents or peers. It can be internal. It can be a love for learning. Unfortunately, in low income communities, motivation from parents and peers is sometimes lacking. Schools that serve students who don’t necessarily desire an education need to prove to students that education is worth it before they can even begin to teach.
*We've been discussing on this blog that public schools in the era of NCLB are failing their brightest lower-income students "virtually as a matter of policy." What did CR schools do to challenge particularly bright kids?
Cristo Rey schools encourage those kids to go to other schools. Cristo Rey was founded for those students who didn’t have the academic background to get into the city’s elite high schools — private or public. Cristo Rey’s administrators still tell students that, if they can get into Whitney Young, Walter Payton, or St. Ignatius, they should go there.
Cristo Rey wasn’t founded to educate the best and brightest students, but rather to give those middle of the road students who might be at a higher risk of dropping out or failing to prepare adequately for post-secondary education with the best education possible.
Initially, there was no tracking at Cristo Rey. It’s my understanding, though, that there has been a realization that the school does attract students with very different aptitudes and skill levels and, as a result, the school has begun to experiment with tracking.
* How does working in an office environment change children's perceptions of the adult world?
Enormously. Tom Vander Ark, who used to run the education arm of the Gates Foundation and now runs the X Prize Foundation, has praised Cristo Rey schools for giving students “an opportunity to spend time with adults they can imagine becoming.”
Many of Cristo Rey’s freshman students have a somewhat narrow world view. For the most part they come from blue collar families and, in many cases, they spend very little time outside of the neighborhood. Their sense of the future and their potential is sometimes limited by what they’ve seen. They simply don’t know what is out there.
Going to work instead of going to class five schools days every month opens the students’ eyes to another part of the world. It’s not uncommon for a Cristo Rey student to graduate from high school having worked at a bank, a law firm, a consulting company, and an advertising agency. Talk about expanding horizons.
I think the experience of working to earn their own tuition also gives the Cristo Rey students a profound understanding of the sacrifices their parents make on a daily basis to provide for their families.
* If a parent isn't near a CR school (or the family wouldn't qualify) is there some way to recreate some of the adult mentoring that comes from the corporate work-study program?
Great question. I think any young person, regardless of their station in life, benefits from relationships with adults. Such relationships help students and young people to see that the world is much bigger, and often more exciting, than is sometimes apparent to them.
As you said, not every family qualifies for Cristo Rey schools—only low-income families are allowed to apply. To answer your question, though, yes, I think there are ways to replicate some of the mentoring that takes place between students and adults through the work program. Many communities have mentoring programs. If your readers’ communities don’t, maybe they can create such programs. Summer internships or after school jobs can also be a good way for students to interact with adults. You may also think about inviting adults from the community in to your child’s school to talk about what they do at work or how their educations have impacted their lives. It could be a regular series. I think, as the students get older, this becomes more and more valuable.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
The Perfect Match
Barring big news (shockingly, I once had a column on the Miss America pageant bumped by 9/11...) I should have a column in USA Today tomorrow about the new Bravo reality show Millionaire Matchmaker. This show features the antics of a California matchmaker, Patti Stanger, who sets up rich men with gorgeous women.
Yes, the show is silly and offensive. But I think it offers some interesting points for discussion. In the column, I criticize the fact that most of the women have "unthreatening" jobs. But, though the primary screen -- by a long shot -- is looks, Patti does like to set her clients up with reasonably bright women.
We've come a long way on this front in the past 100 years. One study of women born in the 1920's found that more intelligent women were less likely to marry. These days that's not true -- women with college degrees, and indeed graduate degrees, are just as likely to marry as women who are less educated. They just tend to marry a little later in life. A Columbia Business School study of speed-dating (in which men and women meet lots of dates for a few minutes apiece) found that men do exhibit a preference for intelligence in women -- to a point. That point turns out to be exactly the perception the man has of his own intelligence. In other words, these days, men seem to want their wives to be a perfect match on the brains front. That's Why Smart Men Marry Smart Women.
I find this all fascinating. Growing up, girls get a lot of messages about brains, beauty, ambition, and love. As we discussed in the Nerds post here on Gifted Exchange, young children seldom hear the message that beauty, brains, and love can go together. One of the reasons many gifted advocates stress that identification and accommodation need to happen before third grade is that by this time, many gifted girls have already fully absorbed the message that to be smart is to be unlovable. Boys don't make passes at girls who wear glasses. In a group of other gifted girls and boys, however, intelligence recedes as a primary identifier. You can suddenly be the soccer player, the girl with the cute smile, the singer, the actress. One of the most jarring moments of my life was when I found out that, during a game of Truth or Dare at one of the summer "nerd" camps I attended, a group of guys had named me as the most attractive girl on the hall. This did not even remotely fit with my self-concept. I was first and foremost the "smart girl." Who knew I could be anything else?
I now find myself in an entirely different situation. My husband and I are well-matched in terms of intelligence and ambition. To an outsider, though, here's the situation: I married a successful businessman who's ten years my senior. I've had to deal with first impressions from new acquaintances that "oh, this is the trophy wife." To put it mildly, this does not fit with my self-concept either. It stinks to be pre-judged as stupid as much as it stinks to be pre-judged as the smart girl and nothing else.
There are a lot of things changing in society right now. It is hard to put a finger on exactly where things stand. A woman is running seriously for president, but she was launched onto the national stage by her husband. Women now run four of the Ivy League schools (including Harvard and Princeton), but lead just one of the largest 50 companies in the US. In the Columbia speed dating experiments, men were a lot less likely to follow up with women they perceived as more intelligent or ambitious than themselves. But they did prefer smart women to less intelligent women, right up to the tipping point of their own level of intelligence. Who knows where things will stand 50 years from now? It's hard to predict, but I believe -- here on Valentine's Day 2008 -- that we're moving in the right direction. Even if Millionaire Matchmaker is getting there a little slower than the rest of us.
Yes, the show is silly and offensive. But I think it offers some interesting points for discussion. In the column, I criticize the fact that most of the women have "unthreatening" jobs. But, though the primary screen -- by a long shot -- is looks, Patti does like to set her clients up with reasonably bright women.
We've come a long way on this front in the past 100 years. One study of women born in the 1920's found that more intelligent women were less likely to marry. These days that's not true -- women with college degrees, and indeed graduate degrees, are just as likely to marry as women who are less educated. They just tend to marry a little later in life. A Columbia Business School study of speed-dating (in which men and women meet lots of dates for a few minutes apiece) found that men do exhibit a preference for intelligence in women -- to a point. That point turns out to be exactly the perception the man has of his own intelligence. In other words, these days, men seem to want their wives to be a perfect match on the brains front. That's Why Smart Men Marry Smart Women.
I find this all fascinating. Growing up, girls get a lot of messages about brains, beauty, ambition, and love. As we discussed in the Nerds post here on Gifted Exchange, young children seldom hear the message that beauty, brains, and love can go together. One of the reasons many gifted advocates stress that identification and accommodation need to happen before third grade is that by this time, many gifted girls have already fully absorbed the message that to be smart is to be unlovable. Boys don't make passes at girls who wear glasses. In a group of other gifted girls and boys, however, intelligence recedes as a primary identifier. You can suddenly be the soccer player, the girl with the cute smile, the singer, the actress. One of the most jarring moments of my life was when I found out that, during a game of Truth or Dare at one of the summer "nerd" camps I attended, a group of guys had named me as the most attractive girl on the hall. This did not even remotely fit with my self-concept. I was first and foremost the "smart girl." Who knew I could be anything else?
I now find myself in an entirely different situation. My husband and I are well-matched in terms of intelligence and ambition. To an outsider, though, here's the situation: I married a successful businessman who's ten years my senior. I've had to deal with first impressions from new acquaintances that "oh, this is the trophy wife." To put it mildly, this does not fit with my self-concept either. It stinks to be pre-judged as stupid as much as it stinks to be pre-judged as the smart girl and nothing else.
There are a lot of things changing in society right now. It is hard to put a finger on exactly where things stand. A woman is running seriously for president, but she was launched onto the national stage by her husband. Women now run four of the Ivy League schools (including Harvard and Princeton), but lead just one of the largest 50 companies in the US. In the Columbia speed dating experiments, men were a lot less likely to follow up with women they perceived as more intelligent or ambitious than themselves. But they did prefer smart women to less intelligent women, right up to the tipping point of their own level of intelligence. Who knows where things will stand 50 years from now? It's hard to predict, but I believe -- here on Valentine's Day 2008 -- that we're moving in the right direction. Even if Millionaire Matchmaker is getting there a little slower than the rest of us.
Sunday, February 10, 2008
The Gifted Brain
It may wind up being Brain Week here on Gifted Exchange... I've been reading various articles and studies about how intelligence corresponds with actual physical differences in the brain, and how the brain works. For one run-down, see this CNN write-up on "Scientists dissect the mystery of genius." According to this piece, scientists at the Mental Illness and Neurodiscovery Institute have found that there is a strong correlation between intelligence and the size and shape of various brain structures. Parts mentioned include the superior parietal lobe, and parts of the prefrontal cortex. Also, brains of smarter people (as measured by IQ) are often less active, but more efficient.
What if, someday, we were able to measure someone's intelligence via brain scans? What if imaging gets to a point where we can measure just how quickly someone's left and right brain work together, or if certain structures are larger or more efficient -- and we come up with a way to map this onto generally accepted intelligence measurements? How would you feel about that?
My first thought was to be a bit apprehensive. After all, this sounds like a modern-day version of those old cranial measurements that were once used to "prove" that people of certain ethnic backgrounds were not quite all there, mentally.
But then I thought more about it. Head measurements are obviously an incredibly rough proxy for anything. Then again, IQ tests are a proxy, too. Through written or oral means, we are attempting to judge how quickly the brain is able to solve problems by piecing together previously learned information, how quickly it can assess patterns, and whether it can make inferences. The written and oral means introduce some hazards of their own. A child who's been given lots of logic puzzles will know how to solve these better than one who's never seen such games before. A kid who's been drilled on his letters will do better on a school readiness assessment (see the post on NYC's new gifted screening program, below).
A brain scan, on the other hand, may actually be able to measure raw intelligence. As such, wouldn't it be preferable to methods of measuring intelligence that might be more biased against children who haven't been exposed to certain information?
I'm curious what others think of the idea. It doesn't sit very well with me, but I'm really not sure why. Our culture has a strong narrative of the undiscovered genius, the diamond in the rough who doesn't necessarily shine on tests but is secretly brilliant. In theory, brain imaging could discover such a person, but no one likes the idea of one measurement determining anything of too much importance. What do you think?
Some other research has found that the left and right hemispheres of gifted people's brains tend to work together better. When asked to solve problems that required both sides of the brain to work together (because inputs came in different visual fields), boys who had scored well on the math section of the SAT as youngsters were able to solve these problems quicker than those of more average abilities. For the Science Daily write-up, see this article here.
What if, someday, we were able to measure someone's intelligence via brain scans? What if imaging gets to a point where we can measure just how quickly someone's left and right brain work together, or if certain structures are larger or more efficient -- and we come up with a way to map this onto generally accepted intelligence measurements? How would you feel about that?
My first thought was to be a bit apprehensive. After all, this sounds like a modern-day version of those old cranial measurements that were once used to "prove" that people of certain ethnic backgrounds were not quite all there, mentally.
But then I thought more about it. Head measurements are obviously an incredibly rough proxy for anything. Then again, IQ tests are a proxy, too. Through written or oral means, we are attempting to judge how quickly the brain is able to solve problems by piecing together previously learned information, how quickly it can assess patterns, and whether it can make inferences. The written and oral means introduce some hazards of their own. A child who's been given lots of logic puzzles will know how to solve these better than one who's never seen such games before. A kid who's been drilled on his letters will do better on a school readiness assessment (see the post on NYC's new gifted screening program, below).
A brain scan, on the other hand, may actually be able to measure raw intelligence. As such, wouldn't it be preferable to methods of measuring intelligence that might be more biased against children who haven't been exposed to certain information?
I'm curious what others think of the idea. It doesn't sit very well with me, but I'm really not sure why. Our culture has a strong narrative of the undiscovered genius, the diamond in the rough who doesn't necessarily shine on tests but is secretly brilliant. In theory, brain imaging could discover such a person, but no one likes the idea of one measurement determining anything of too much importance. What do you think?
Wednesday, February 06, 2008
Screening Everybody
New York City has a long history of providing gifted education to its children; there are dozens of programs scattered around the city, and several self-contained gifted schools. Stuyvesant, for instance, on the high school level, is internationally known. This being New York, the gifted programs are also quite diverse, with students -- many of them new immigrants -- speaking dozens of languages in their homes.
Of course, this is also an extremely competitive city, with all the usual problems of under-performing public schools. So getting into the city's gifted programs has also been a highly sought-after good for families. Private school is expensive, and comes with its own hassles. The city has used gifted programs as a way to lure middle and upper class families into the public schools, but such families are not arranged randomly around the city. Plus, some gifted programs have been located in dangerous neighborhoods, making parents disinclined to send their children there.
As a result, there has been a patchwork of entrance requirements for different programs over the years. Getting into some programs -- for instance, on the Upper West Side -- has been more difficult than getting into others.
This past year, New York has attempted to make the system a bit more fair and equitable. And frankly, I think they've hit on a reasonable solution. Right now, across the city's elementary schools, kindergartners, first and second graders are all taking the Otis-Lennon School Ability Test (OLSAT), and the Bracken School Readiness Assessment (BSRA). Previously, parents had to request testing. Now it is done as a matter of course. The OLSAT, which measures logical thinking and reasoning ability, accounts for 75% of a student's score. The BSRA, which tests things like colors, shapes and numbers, accounts for 25%.
I think the use of the BSRA leaves the city open for a bit of criticism. While New York has been trying to enroll students in Head Start and other preschool programs, many kids have not attended these programs or high quality daycare programs. As a result, they may be a bit behind on their shapes, letters, numbers and colors, and other such knowledge that depends on information transfer. The OLSAT is a bit closer to a "pure" intelligence test (if such a thing exists). In theory, the material children learn at preschool should be less relevant, though even the idea of sitting still for a test is somewhat of a learned skill. But the 75-25 split does give the city a hedge against the idea that it's basing a child's future on a single test.
Any child who scores at the 95th percentile or above will be guaranteed a spot in a gifted program. Anyone who scores over the 97th percentile will be guaranteed a spot in one of the programs that draws children from across the city. You can read the city's brochure on the new policies here.
I think it's great that the city is taking this issue seriously. As Andrew Jacob, a Department of Education spokesperson, told Time Out New York Kids, "We want to identify more gifted and talented students and to make sure we're meeting their needs." It is infinitely more fair to test everyone than to rely on parents making the call that a child needs intervention.
That said, did I mention that New York is competitive? The Time Out New York Kids article on the gifted program changes cautioned parents to "break out the flash cards." It is too bad that many parents -- rightly, alas -- perceive the gifted programs as islands of excellence in a public school system that, though improving, still has a lot of problems. If you're counting on your child scoring above the 95th percentile so you can avoid paying $26,000 in private school tuition (or moving to the suburbs), you can bet that you will break out the flash cards. I wish that all the schools were excellent, and that the city's gifted programs were simply perceived as educational interventions for children who need them. But this is not the case. In the meantime, at least the new system is relatively fair.
Of course, this is also an extremely competitive city, with all the usual problems of under-performing public schools. So getting into the city's gifted programs has also been a highly sought-after good for families. Private school is expensive, and comes with its own hassles. The city has used gifted programs as a way to lure middle and upper class families into the public schools, but such families are not arranged randomly around the city. Plus, some gifted programs have been located in dangerous neighborhoods, making parents disinclined to send their children there.
As a result, there has been a patchwork of entrance requirements for different programs over the years. Getting into some programs -- for instance, on the Upper West Side -- has been more difficult than getting into others.
This past year, New York has attempted to make the system a bit more fair and equitable. And frankly, I think they've hit on a reasonable solution. Right now, across the city's elementary schools, kindergartners, first and second graders are all taking the Otis-Lennon School Ability Test (OLSAT), and the Bracken School Readiness Assessment (BSRA). Previously, parents had to request testing. Now it is done as a matter of course. The OLSAT, which measures logical thinking and reasoning ability, accounts for 75% of a student's score. The BSRA, which tests things like colors, shapes and numbers, accounts for 25%.
I think the use of the BSRA leaves the city open for a bit of criticism. While New York has been trying to enroll students in Head Start and other preschool programs, many kids have not attended these programs or high quality daycare programs. As a result, they may be a bit behind on their shapes, letters, numbers and colors, and other such knowledge that depends on information transfer. The OLSAT is a bit closer to a "pure" intelligence test (if such a thing exists). In theory, the material children learn at preschool should be less relevant, though even the idea of sitting still for a test is somewhat of a learned skill. But the 75-25 split does give the city a hedge against the idea that it's basing a child's future on a single test.
Any child who scores at the 95th percentile or above will be guaranteed a spot in a gifted program. Anyone who scores over the 97th percentile will be guaranteed a spot in one of the programs that draws children from across the city. You can read the city's brochure on the new policies here.
I think it's great that the city is taking this issue seriously. As Andrew Jacob, a Department of Education spokesperson, told Time Out New York Kids, "We want to identify more gifted and talented students and to make sure we're meeting their needs." It is infinitely more fair to test everyone than to rely on parents making the call that a child needs intervention.
That said, did I mention that New York is competitive? The Time Out New York Kids article on the gifted program changes cautioned parents to "break out the flash cards." It is too bad that many parents -- rightly, alas -- perceive the gifted programs as islands of excellence in a public school system that, though improving, still has a lot of problems. If you're counting on your child scoring above the 95th percentile so you can avoid paying $26,000 in private school tuition (or moving to the suburbs), you can bet that you will break out the flash cards. I wish that all the schools were excellent, and that the city's gifted programs were simply perceived as educational interventions for children who need them. But this is not the case. In the meantime, at least the new system is relatively fair.
Monday, February 04, 2008
"We're neglecting our brightest low-income kids virtually as a matter of policy..."
I've finally been going through the pile of old BusinessWeek magazines at my house, and came across a Second Careers pull-out section from the Dec. 17 issue. The lead article, "Mr. P Learns His Lesson" was about a former BusinessWeek communications director, Robert Pondiscio, who had become an NYC Teaching Fellow. Basically an alternative certification program for mid-career types, the NYC Teaching Fellowship program aims to put these folks in jobs in hard-t0-fill schools. Pondiscio wound up teaching fifth graders in a South Bronx elementary school. In general, "parents loved me," he says. He was strict, gave a lot of homework, and enforced standards.
The article is mostly about how Pondiscio still managed to get burned out after five years of teaching, and wound up transitioning back to communications and non-profit work. But I thought that his observations about working in an urban school in the era of No Child Left Behind were most prescient. I quote:
"I was especially frustrated for my highest-achieving students. I have nothing but admiration for high-minded education reformers, teachers, and administrators who want to make sure every child goes to a great school. But one of the unintended consequences of the accountability movement in schools is that virtually all of a teacher's time and attention goes to the lowest-performing students. We lie to ourselves that we're educating high-performing kids because they test at or above grade level on dumbed-down state tests. In reality we're neglecting our brightest low-income kids virtually as a matter of policy, all but guaranteeing their future struggles in college and the workplace."
Eventually, Pondiscio decided he should start a non-profit that would focus on high-achieving low-income children -- on challenging them, and finding opportunities for them. And actually, New York City is embarking on a new era of gifted education -- in which all children will be screened, and all children who score in the 95th percentile will be offered a spot in the city's gifted programs. Up until now, admission to the various gifted programs has been a complicated patchwork of systems which, not surprisingly, better-off and better-connected parents were better able to navigate (we'll do another longer post on this topic later).
But I think that Pondiscio is on to something. There is a lot to like about the accountability movement. For too many years, too many educators have assumed that as long as there was a teacher in a classroom, and textbooks, and adequate funding, schools were doing their job. This is how a lot of jobs have worked in the past -- show up, you get a paycheck. No one demands a connection to the business bottom line. Now, we as a society are asking about outcomes. Are kids actually learning to read? Are they gaining the math skills necessary to get anywhere in life?
Yet...Savvy parents can deal with schools that focus on lower-performing students to the exclusion of their brightest pupils. They can notice that their children aren't being challenged, demand accommodations, or enroll their children in extra-curricular activities, make sure the kids get to the library a lot, read a lot, or else even pull their children out and put them in private schools. Children whose parents are not so savvy are simply stuck with the schools and teachers they get. T
his is a shame and needs to be addressed -- not by dumping the accountability movement's new standards, which would be a disaster -- but by judging schools and teachers based on individual students' progress. Give a high-scoring third grader a fifth grade achievement test. If she scores at the 79th percentile in the fall, and the 79th percentile in the spring, there should be consequences. What gets measured and rewarded gets attention. It's just that sometimes, we're measuring the wrong things.
The article is mostly about how Pondiscio still managed to get burned out after five years of teaching, and wound up transitioning back to communications and non-profit work. But I thought that his observations about working in an urban school in the era of No Child Left Behind were most prescient. I quote:
"I was especially frustrated for my highest-achieving students. I have nothing but admiration for high-minded education reformers, teachers, and administrators who want to make sure every child goes to a great school. But one of the unintended consequences of the accountability movement in schools is that virtually all of a teacher's time and attention goes to the lowest-performing students. We lie to ourselves that we're educating high-performing kids because they test at or above grade level on dumbed-down state tests. In reality we're neglecting our brightest low-income kids virtually as a matter of policy, all but guaranteeing their future struggles in college and the workplace."
Eventually, Pondiscio decided he should start a non-profit that would focus on high-achieving low-income children -- on challenging them, and finding opportunities for them. And actually, New York City is embarking on a new era of gifted education -- in which all children will be screened, and all children who score in the 95th percentile will be offered a spot in the city's gifted programs. Up until now, admission to the various gifted programs has been a complicated patchwork of systems which, not surprisingly, better-off and better-connected parents were better able to navigate (we'll do another longer post on this topic later).
But I think that Pondiscio is on to something. There is a lot to like about the accountability movement. For too many years, too many educators have assumed that as long as there was a teacher in a classroom, and textbooks, and adequate funding, schools were doing their job. This is how a lot of jobs have worked in the past -- show up, you get a paycheck. No one demands a connection to the business bottom line. Now, we as a society are asking about outcomes. Are kids actually learning to read? Are they gaining the math skills necessary to get anywhere in life?
Yet...Savvy parents can deal with schools that focus on lower-performing students to the exclusion of their brightest pupils. They can notice that their children aren't being challenged, demand accommodations, or enroll their children in extra-curricular activities, make sure the kids get to the library a lot, read a lot, or else even pull their children out and put them in private schools. Children whose parents are not so savvy are simply stuck with the schools and teachers they get. T
his is a shame and needs to be addressed -- not by dumping the accountability movement's new standards, which would be a disaster -- but by judging schools and teachers based on individual students' progress. Give a high-scoring third grader a fifth grade achievement test. If she scores at the 79th percentile in the fall, and the 79th percentile in the spring, there should be consequences. What gets measured and rewarded gets attention. It's just that sometimes, we're measuring the wrong things.
Friday, February 01, 2008
Gifted Education in High School
In Florida, over the past few years, lawmakers have been weighing whether to appropriate funds for gifted education in high schools. You can read a story from the Orlando Sentinel about the issue here. This is an issue that affects all of the states, and both sides have some good points. As some folks have pointed out, gifted students do have a lot of options at the high school level that are not necessarily labeled "gifted education" as such. Advanced Placement classes, other accelerated classes and dual enrollment are often options for pupils looking for challenging work.
Indeed, high schools come closer than elementary and middle schools to what a "good" education for a gifted kid should look like already. Since students usually change classes every hour, moving to a higher-level class isn't quite so logistically difficult as it is for elementary students. In math and English, at least, there are often different levels (or -- scandalous! -- "tracks") which makes readiness/ability grouping par for the course. And there are no silly pull-out programs that have the kids doing enrichment activities about Robin Hood, insects, the culture of Japan, etc., but not advanced math, science or English. Since AP classes, accelerated classes and dual enrollment aren't labeled "gifted education" as such, they don't have the same political sensitivity. When things come out of more general funds, they tend to be safer. As parents across the country have discovered, when something needs to be cut, a line in the budget called "gifted education" is often the first on the block.
That said, my guess is that Florida's high schools don't universally offer the whole suite of AP classes, or prepare kids to take them in grades 9-11, rather than solely in grade 12. Dual enrollment at local community colleges is a great option for gifted students who have particular interests or who have exhausted their local high schools' offerings. But my guess is that few schools make such arrangements as a matter of course.
If Florida -- and other states! -- want to nurture their gifted teenagers, one good option is to create residential high schools for gifted students. Such schools can offer the full suite of AP courses, which can be broadcast to students elsewhere who can't or aren't willing to enroll in a residential school. The legislature could also appropriate gifted funds for creating a dual-enrollment office or coordinator in the various districts. In general I don't like creating more bureaucracy, but since this person or office will have to do something with their time, they may make it more likely for schools to actually make dual enrollment work.
I'm curious if parents reading this blog live in districts that have made good arrangements for gifted high schoolers, and what you think about gifted education at the high school level.
Indeed, high schools come closer than elementary and middle schools to what a "good" education for a gifted kid should look like already. Since students usually change classes every hour, moving to a higher-level class isn't quite so logistically difficult as it is for elementary students. In math and English, at least, there are often different levels (or -- scandalous! -- "tracks") which makes readiness/ability grouping par for the course. And there are no silly pull-out programs that have the kids doing enrichment activities about Robin Hood, insects, the culture of Japan, etc., but not advanced math, science or English. Since AP classes, accelerated classes and dual enrollment aren't labeled "gifted education" as such, they don't have the same political sensitivity. When things come out of more general funds, they tend to be safer. As parents across the country have discovered, when something needs to be cut, a line in the budget called "gifted education" is often the first on the block.
That said, my guess is that Florida's high schools don't universally offer the whole suite of AP classes, or prepare kids to take them in grades 9-11, rather than solely in grade 12. Dual enrollment at local community colleges is a great option for gifted students who have particular interests or who have exhausted their local high schools' offerings. But my guess is that few schools make such arrangements as a matter of course.
If Florida -- and other states! -- want to nurture their gifted teenagers, one good option is to create residential high schools for gifted students. Such schools can offer the full suite of AP courses, which can be broadcast to students elsewhere who can't or aren't willing to enroll in a residential school. The legislature could also appropriate gifted funds for creating a dual-enrollment office or coordinator in the various districts. In general I don't like creating more bureaucracy, but since this person or office will have to do something with their time, they may make it more likely for schools to actually make dual enrollment work.
I'm curious if parents reading this blog live in districts that have made good arrangements for gifted high schoolers, and what you think about gifted education at the high school level.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Making Math Pay
I have a column in today's USA Today about a topic we've been discussing on this blog: paying math teachers more than other teachers in order to increase quality and quantity. Here's a link to the article, "Making Math Pay."
For the piece, I got to visit with some incredibly dynamic math and science teachers at Banana Kelly High School in the Bronx, interviewed Jim Simons (referred to once in the Financial Times as the world's smartest billionaire), and generally came away convinced of what I often find. There are some very good small programs out there, including Math for America, the Cristo Rey schools I wrote about this fall, the National Foundation for Teaching Entrepreneurship I wrote about last winter, etc. These three programs are particularly interesting because they all aim to achieve scale. Math for America is being replicated in a handful of other cities, the Cristo Rey Network now has 19 members, and NFTE is in hundreds of schools.
Of course, the question is, does any of this move the needle? There are 50 million K-12 students out there. These three programs have wonderful results, but they help just a few thousand kids apiece.
Then again, I guess there's another question: does that matter? Maybe we can't necessarily move the needle for everyone, but as long as there are enough programs that do work -- affordable Catholic schools available to inner city kids, entrepreneurship programs that teach kids actual workable economics and that they always have the ability to make a job if they can't get one, a core cadre of excellent math teachers in urban schools -- there are life rafts for kids and families that choose to look for them. And there is something to that, even if it isn't everything.
For the piece, I got to visit with some incredibly dynamic math and science teachers at Banana Kelly High School in the Bronx, interviewed Jim Simons (referred to once in the Financial Times as the world's smartest billionaire), and generally came away convinced of what I often find. There are some very good small programs out there, including Math for America, the Cristo Rey schools I wrote about this fall, the National Foundation for Teaching Entrepreneurship I wrote about last winter, etc. These three programs are particularly interesting because they all aim to achieve scale. Math for America is being replicated in a handful of other cities, the Cristo Rey Network now has 19 members, and NFTE is in hundreds of schools.
Of course, the question is, does any of this move the needle? There are 50 million K-12 students out there. These three programs have wonderful results, but they help just a few thousand kids apiece.
Then again, I guess there's another question: does that matter? Maybe we can't necessarily move the needle for everyone, but as long as there are enough programs that do work -- affordable Catholic schools available to inner city kids, entrepreneurship programs that teach kids actual workable economics and that they always have the ability to make a job if they can't get one, a core cadre of excellent math teachers in urban schools -- there are life rafts for kids and families that choose to look for them. And there is something to that, even if it isn't everything.
Making Math Pay
I have a column in today's USA Today about a topic we've been discussing on this blog: paying math teachers more than other teachers in order to increase quality and quantity. Here's a link to the article, "Making Math Pay."
For the piece, I got to visit with some incredibly dynamic math and science teachers at Banana Kelly High School in the Bronx, interviewed Jim Simons (referred to once in the Financial Times as the world's smartest billionaire), and generally came away convinced of what I often find. There are some very good small programs out there, including Math for America, the Cristo Rey schools I wrote about this fall, the National Foundation for Teaching Entrepreneurship I wrote about last winter, etc. These three programs are particularly interesting because they all aim to achieve scale. Math for America is being replicated in a handful of other cities, the Cristo Rey Network now has 19 members, and NFTE is in hundreds of schools.
Of course, the question is, does any of this move the needle? There are 50 million K-12 students out there. These three programs have wonderful results, but they help just a few thousand kids apiece.
Then again, I guess there's another question: does that matter? Maybe we can't necessarily move the needle for everyone, but as long as there are enough programs that do work -- affordable Catholic schools available to inner city kids, entrepreneurship programs that teach kids actual workable economics and that they always have the ability to make a job if they can't get one, a core cadre of excellent math teachers in urban schools -- there are life rafts for kids and families that choose to look for them. And there is something to that, even if it isn't everything.
For the piece, I got to visit with some incredibly dynamic math and science teachers at Banana Kelly High School in the Bronx, interviewed Jim Simons (referred to once in the Financial Times as the world's smartest billionaire), and generally came away convinced of what I often find. There are some very good small programs out there, including Math for America, the Cristo Rey schools I wrote about this fall, the National Foundation for Teaching Entrepreneurship I wrote about last winter, etc. These three programs are particularly interesting because they all aim to achieve scale. Math for America is being replicated in a handful of other cities, the Cristo Rey Network now has 19 members, and NFTE is in hundreds of schools.
Of course, the question is, does any of this move the needle? There are 50 million K-12 students out there. These three programs have wonderful results, but they help just a few thousand kids apiece.
Then again, I guess there's another question: does that matter? Maybe we can't necessarily move the needle for everyone, but as long as there are enough programs that do work -- affordable Catholic schools available to inner city kids, entrepreneurship programs that teach kids actual workable economics and that they always have the ability to make a job if they can't get one, a core cadre of excellent math teachers in urban schools -- there are life rafts for kids and families that choose to look for them. And there is something to that, even if it isn't everything.
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Nerds: Who They Are and Why We Need More of Them
Nerds is a fascinating book, and I highly recommend it to parents of kids who've been teased for being nerds, and those who haven't. He has a few main points. In our anti-intellectual culture, nerds (often so labeled for being socially un-self-conscious, and deeply interested in things other people deem weird or hard like math) are the low end of the social totem pole. Kids learn that being a nerd means, by definition, that you are unattractive to people and will likely never win over members of the opposite sex. The most gifted mathematicians will pursue their gifts anyway. But kids on the margins might shun such subjects in order to maintain their social standing. By the time they get to late high school and realize it's all silly -- and that you need a lot of math to get the best jobs in society -- it's too late.
Anderegg also probes the depths of the nerd and jock archetypes, criticizing the Legend of Sleepy Hollow for giving us the weird bookish character of Ichabod Crane, and wondering if Pres. Bush's habit of giving reporters nicknames won over these former nerds during his first election campaign. He takes on the ease with which amateur psychologists diagnose Asperger's syndrome, and pleas for parents to stop putting down "nerdy" kids in their own conversations. We asked him a few questions:
LV: In your book, you note that "nerds" are a particularly American phenomenon. Why is that? Certainly not just because of the Legend of Sleepy Hollow! I would venture to say most people haven't read the book.
People make fun of "nerds" who would never make fun of, say, African Americans. But is there a racial element, when it comes to Asian Americans? You note that there are no popular Asian rock stars, possibly because of the nerd stereotype.
You posit that
Can girls be nerds?
Girls can have the attributes of nerds but the nerd stereotype is pretty exclusively male. If you ask people to describe a prototypical nerd, 99 out of 100 will describe a male.
Asperger’s seems to have become the nerd-disease. Why do people like to “diagnose” improbable people (such as Bill Gates) with Asperger's?
The concept of "spectrum disorders" is popular, and scientifically valid. Asperger's Disease is seen as being the upper end of the autism spectrum. But no one seems to know where the spectrum ends and normal variation begins. Normality is not a point; it is also a spectrum, and Americans have very little understanding of the idea of normal variation: people can have varying degrees of eye contact, for example, and still be normal. So any little quirk is now described as a “touch of Asperger's.”
Has Harry Potter made it socially safe for kids to be interested in wizards again?
Would the culture change if there were, say, a TV show featuring a lot of hot mathematicians? Certainly a lot of our richest folks these days – hedge fund managers – are mathematicians. And they get hot dates. Does this change anything?
What can parents do if their kids are being teased because of nerdiness?
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
"...But there's plenty of normal teenager too"
This post is an introduction, of sorts, to a longer post I hope to put up later this week. I recently read an article in the New York Times about 2007 Davidson Fellow Yuqing Meng. The article tells of this young man's amazing musical gifts (and, it turns out, physics gifts, too), but the title is really bugging me. Here it is: "A Prodigy, Sure, but There's Plenty of Normal Teenager, Too."
It's bugging me because I've been reading a fascinating book called Nerds: Who They Are and Why We Need More of Them by David Anderegg. The author has agreed to a Gifted Exchange interview, so we'll post more on the book later. But one of the takeaways from this book is the idea that extreme interest and gifts in certain subjects (often math and science, but certainly classical music too) imply that someone is unlikeable, likely to be unlucky in love, and unattractive as well. This is a stereotype that stems from general American anti-intellectualism, and is taken quite literally by young children, because, well, children are literal minded. Prodigies by definition show extreme interest and gifts in something -- often something deemed a little hard or foreign to the rest of us -- and so, by definition they must be strange, weird and probably a little off. Not someone you'd want to hang out with.
Since in journalism, profiles are generally supposed to make you like the person, the journalist must inevitably contend with this stereotype. And so profiles of prodigies inevitably contain paragraphs about how the child in question is actually so normal. I have personal experience with this; an article on me in the South Bend Tribune after I did the incredibly geeky thing of score an 800 on the math SAT section in 8th grade made sure to mention that I was on the cheerleading squad. See, she's not really a nerd! Because a nerd is the worst thing you can be.
Likewise, our headline writer here at the New York Times wants to assure us that though Meng is obviously much better at piano than the rest of us, and better at physics, we should take comfort that he is just a "normal teenager" who is worried about where he'll go to college. See, he's not a nerd either! This genre of article also tends to make a big deal of prodigies' community service pursuits. It's another thing that humanizes them and makes them not seem part of the despised "other."
It's bugging me because I've been reading a fascinating book called Nerds: Who They Are and Why We Need More of Them by David Anderegg. The author has agreed to a Gifted Exchange interview, so we'll post more on the book later. But one of the takeaways from this book is the idea that extreme interest and gifts in certain subjects (often math and science, but certainly classical music too) imply that someone is unlikeable, likely to be unlucky in love, and unattractive as well. This is a stereotype that stems from general American anti-intellectualism, and is taken quite literally by young children, because, well, children are literal minded. Prodigies by definition show extreme interest and gifts in something -- often something deemed a little hard or foreign to the rest of us -- and so, by definition they must be strange, weird and probably a little off. Not someone you'd want to hang out with.
Since in journalism, profiles are generally supposed to make you like the person, the journalist must inevitably contend with this stereotype. And so profiles of prodigies inevitably contain paragraphs about how the child in question is actually so normal. I have personal experience with this; an article on me in the South Bend Tribune after I did the incredibly geeky thing of score an 800 on the math SAT section in 8th grade made sure to mention that I was on the cheerleading squad. See, she's not really a nerd! Because a nerd is the worst thing you can be.
Likewise, our headline writer here at the New York Times wants to assure us that though Meng is obviously much better at piano than the rest of us, and better at physics, we should take comfort that he is just a "normal teenager" who is worried about where he'll go to college. See, he's not a nerd either! This genre of article also tends to make a big deal of prodigies' community service pursuits. It's another thing that humanizes them and makes them not seem part of the despised "other."
Friday, January 18, 2008
Insufferable Genius (RIP Bobby Fischer)
It's become a bit of a cliche that child prodigies fly high then fall fast, or at least develop some rather strange habits. Bobby Fischer, the international chess champion who died yesterday in Iceland at age 64 after a long illness, certainly did his part to keep this impression alive. Indeed, he was the quintessential troubled genius, seemingly misunderstood by most people, achieving great things while finding himself unable to live within certain constraints society imposed. You can read one obituary about him here.
The more I study people with profound intelligence, the more I am convinced that their brains do not exactly work like the rest of ours. Fischer appeared to have a certain self-defeating impulsiveness. One illicit match in Yugoslavia led to 9 months in detention, a revoked passport and exile (a nice one, but exile nonetheless) in Iceland. Yet in his mind, I'm sure it made sense. After all, his replaying his old rival Boris Spassky on a resort island did nothing to personally punish Slobodan Milosevic, the actual target of international sanctions. Since the rule didn't make sense, he didn't follow it.
He was prone to making anti-Semitic statements (though part Jewish himself; again, other people's rules of civility don't apply). He didn't like to go along with the showmanship part of chess that backers always wanted to draw crowds. One got the sense that he had a very fundamentalist view of the game (indeed, he accused current chess promoters of rigging games), failing to see that the pomp and circumstance is what gave him a platform beyond playing in a park. He was erratic. He was prone to the over-excitabilities that many parents of profoundly gifted children recognize. But boy could he play a lovely game of chess.
One always wonders with troubled geniuses if they, looking back on their lives, would have chosen their gifts. Fischer certainly considered himself the best, and seemed quite proud of that. So he probably would have. But fitting such a frenetic brain into our society is difficult at best. When I think of extreme child prodigies, I find myself thinking about the school for mutants in X-Men (but in a good way!) Simply having a place to be oneself does wonders to calm the mind.
The more I study people with profound intelligence, the more I am convinced that their brains do not exactly work like the rest of ours. Fischer appeared to have a certain self-defeating impulsiveness. One illicit match in Yugoslavia led to 9 months in detention, a revoked passport and exile (a nice one, but exile nonetheless) in Iceland. Yet in his mind, I'm sure it made sense. After all, his replaying his old rival Boris Spassky on a resort island did nothing to personally punish Slobodan Milosevic, the actual target of international sanctions. Since the rule didn't make sense, he didn't follow it.
He was prone to making anti-Semitic statements (though part Jewish himself; again, other people's rules of civility don't apply). He didn't like to go along with the showmanship part of chess that backers always wanted to draw crowds. One got the sense that he had a very fundamentalist view of the game (indeed, he accused current chess promoters of rigging games), failing to see that the pomp and circumstance is what gave him a platform beyond playing in a park. He was erratic. He was prone to the over-excitabilities that many parents of profoundly gifted children recognize. But boy could he play a lovely game of chess.
One always wonders with troubled geniuses if they, looking back on their lives, would have chosen their gifts. Fischer certainly considered himself the best, and seemed quite proud of that. So he probably would have. But fitting such a frenetic brain into our society is difficult at best. When I think of extreme child prodigies, I find myself thinking about the school for mutants in X-Men (but in a good way!) Simply having a place to be oneself does wonders to calm the mind.
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Able Pupils Lose Momentum
An interesting government report out of the UK, written about in a recent article in the Telegraph, comes to the conclusion that "Able Pupils Lose Momentum."
(the Telegraph URL is quite long and is defying my attempts to write it correctly in the link function on Blogger; it's: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=VN42UK5N014RNQFIQMGCFFOAVCBQUIV0?xml=/news/2008/01/06/nschool106.xml)
Apparently, a quarter of the students who score very well on the state schools' tests at age 7 do not achieve high marks at age 11. The report looked at the various reasons and found that, in essence, schools are doing very little to actually nurture these "able pupils." They are often not grouped with children who have similar abilities, teachers spend more time with kids who are having difficulties, and the targets set for these pupils are often underwhelming. Apparently, teachers are supposed to set goals for these pupils (I am guessing this is something like a gifted IEP) but the report states that many teachers do not buy into this, and so the targets are things like "be neater." Of course, if people think the notion of challenging bright pupils is elitist, and everyone needs to be leveled off a bit, it seems to be working, at least for the quarter of students who don't do as well by age 11.
As we've said before on this blog, gifts are useless if they're not unwrapped. Gifted pupils will not inevitably do well in school. They do not necessarily fend for themselves. It is quite possible to turn an extremely bright kid off to learning by making his formal learning as unpleasant as possible. I have no idea why people would choose to do that, but as the UK report shows, it happens.
TOTALLY OFF-TOPIC POST: As many of you know, I'm a freelance writer, and write for all kinds of places beyond Gifted Exchange. Since many parents read this blog, I thought there might be some overlaps on this topic...I'm writing a magazine article, currently, on ways 2-income couples outsource household chores creatively in order to have a smoother home life. If anyone has ideas of people to speak with (folks who've used meal planning services, concierge services, children's taxis, etc.) please email me at lvanderkam at yahoo dot com. Thank you!
(the Telegraph URL is quite long and is defying my attempts to write it correctly in the link function on Blogger; it's: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=VN42UK5N014RNQFIQMGCFFOAVCBQUIV0?xml=/news/2008/01/06/nschool106.xml)
Apparently, a quarter of the students who score very well on the state schools' tests at age 7 do not achieve high marks at age 11. The report looked at the various reasons and found that, in essence, schools are doing very little to actually nurture these "able pupils." They are often not grouped with children who have similar abilities, teachers spend more time with kids who are having difficulties, and the targets set for these pupils are often underwhelming. Apparently, teachers are supposed to set goals for these pupils (I am guessing this is something like a gifted IEP) but the report states that many teachers do not buy into this, and so the targets are things like "be neater." Of course, if people think the notion of challenging bright pupils is elitist, and everyone needs to be leveled off a bit, it seems to be working, at least for the quarter of students who don't do as well by age 11.
As we've said before on this blog, gifts are useless if they're not unwrapped. Gifted pupils will not inevitably do well in school. They do not necessarily fend for themselves. It is quite possible to turn an extremely bright kid off to learning by making his formal learning as unpleasant as possible. I have no idea why people would choose to do that, but as the UK report shows, it happens.
TOTALLY OFF-TOPIC POST: As many of you know, I'm a freelance writer, and write for all kinds of places beyond Gifted Exchange. Since many parents read this blog, I thought there might be some overlaps on this topic...I'm writing a magazine article, currently, on ways 2-income couples outsource household chores creatively in order to have a smoother home life. If anyone has ideas of people to speak with (folks who've used meal planning services, concierge services, children's taxis, etc.) please email me at lvanderkam at yahoo dot com. Thank you!
Wednesday, January 09, 2008
Why Wait Until Third Grade?
I was recently sent an interesting article about a gifted preschool program called the ECAP Academy in Wichita, Kansas. Kids as young as three are tested for giftedness and, if admitted, introduced to a preschool curriculum designed to stretch their little brains.
I can't comment on the school specifically, or the test (which was developed by the school's leaders), but the existence of a few gifted preschool programs like this around the country raise some interesting questions.
Since the mainstream recognition of gifted children and gifted education a few decades ago, schools have generally screened for giftedness in second or third grade. This is also the age in which schools tend to start any gifted programming they may offer. But many parents of highly gifted children have known since very early on that there was something different about their kids. So why do schools wait so long to identify and intervene?
There are a few potential explanations, some of which show good faith toward the whole concept of giftedness, and some which do not. In the "good faith" category, there's the explanation that schools often use IQ tests to identify giftedness, and such tests can be unreliable when used with very young children. Though there are preschool admissions tests (which we hear about a lot here in New York!), and some IQ tests are normed for young children, anyone who's spent much time with a 2-3 year old knows there are a lot of other things that can affect performance. The kid may not want to spend time with a stranger. The kid may want a snack, want a nap, etc. But good preschool programs already take this into account. And there's a big difference between testing a child at 2 or 3, and testing him or her at age 5 (which is when, incidentally, the Davidson Institute recommends testing potentially highly gifted children).
The other potential explanation is the more negative one. Many a parent has been told that kids all even out by third grade. Hence, this is when you can tell if a child is actually gifted, as opposed to, I don't know, faking it. So schools only identify and offer programming in third grade or later.
Aside from not being true, I hardly think the argument that kids all move toward the median is an argument against testing for giftedness earlier. Why not screen multiple times? Maybe more kids will be identified as needing intervention in third grade than in first. That's fine. There's no reason identification has to be a one-shot deal.
But beyond that, if you think about it, this comment shows a fundamental distrust of parents.
The unstated message is that privileged or neurotic parents have been hot-housing their toddlers, and any sign of early giftedness is just evidence that these parents have been shoving flashcards in their tots' faces since they exited the womb. Once the professional educators take over when the kids are 5 or 6, this will all be sorted out.
There are a few problems with this attitude. First, you don't actually have to know how to read to be screened for giftedness (see the tests for 2-3 year olds). Kids who have no exposure to formal education can certainly show signs of extreme intelligence. So it isn't a necessary first step to get all kids up to speed on reading in order to figure out who needs more challenging work.
And second, third grade is actually way too late for many highly gifted children to be identified and served. As the Davidson Institute notes, "Profoundly gifted children often have very difficult early school experiences, which could have been ameliorated or prevented entirely if parents and teachers had had accurate information about their abilities, academic instructional levels, and social/emotional needs. Gifted girls may 'go underground' by age eight, unwilling to demonstrate their precocious abilities in public for fear of making others feel inadequate. Extremely gifted children can also reach the ceilings of various test instruments if you wait until they are older to test them (some profoundly gifted children even reach the ceiling of the Stanford-Binet LM by the age of eight or nine). With any other exceptionality, we would not deliberately wait until several years of elementary school have passed in order to identify the exceptionality."
The last sentence hints at the big problem. Many people see gifted education as some kind of reward. So you wait until all kids have been adequately introduced to formal schooling, and then reward the kids who get good grades with pull-outs that highlight bugs, Robin Hood, the culture of Japan, etc. Done right, gifted education should, instead, be an intervention for kids who need it. Kids are screened for hearing issues at birth because we know that failure to identify such a problem will stunt their learning for life. Likewise, failure to identify and accommodate extreme intelligence can stunt children, too.
I can't comment on the school specifically, or the test (which was developed by the school's leaders), but the existence of a few gifted preschool programs like this around the country raise some interesting questions.
Since the mainstream recognition of gifted children and gifted education a few decades ago, schools have generally screened for giftedness in second or third grade. This is also the age in which schools tend to start any gifted programming they may offer. But many parents of highly gifted children have known since very early on that there was something different about their kids. So why do schools wait so long to identify and intervene?
There are a few potential explanations, some of which show good faith toward the whole concept of giftedness, and some which do not. In the "good faith" category, there's the explanation that schools often use IQ tests to identify giftedness, and such tests can be unreliable when used with very young children. Though there are preschool admissions tests (which we hear about a lot here in New York!), and some IQ tests are normed for young children, anyone who's spent much time with a 2-3 year old knows there are a lot of other things that can affect performance. The kid may not want to spend time with a stranger. The kid may want a snack, want a nap, etc. But good preschool programs already take this into account. And there's a big difference between testing a child at 2 or 3, and testing him or her at age 5 (which is when, incidentally, the Davidson Institute recommends testing potentially highly gifted children).
The other potential explanation is the more negative one. Many a parent has been told that kids all even out by third grade. Hence, this is when you can tell if a child is actually gifted, as opposed to, I don't know, faking it. So schools only identify and offer programming in third grade or later.
Aside from not being true, I hardly think the argument that kids all move toward the median is an argument against testing for giftedness earlier. Why not screen multiple times? Maybe more kids will be identified as needing intervention in third grade than in first. That's fine. There's no reason identification has to be a one-shot deal.
But beyond that, if you think about it, this comment shows a fundamental distrust of parents.
The unstated message is that privileged or neurotic parents have been hot-housing their toddlers, and any sign of early giftedness is just evidence that these parents have been shoving flashcards in their tots' faces since they exited the womb. Once the professional educators take over when the kids are 5 or 6, this will all be sorted out.
There are a few problems with this attitude. First, you don't actually have to know how to read to be screened for giftedness (see the tests for 2-3 year olds). Kids who have no exposure to formal education can certainly show signs of extreme intelligence. So it isn't a necessary first step to get all kids up to speed on reading in order to figure out who needs more challenging work.
And second, third grade is actually way too late for many highly gifted children to be identified and served. As the Davidson Institute notes, "Profoundly gifted children often have very difficult early school experiences, which could have been ameliorated or prevented entirely if parents and teachers had had accurate information about their abilities, academic instructional levels, and social/emotional needs. Gifted girls may 'go underground' by age eight, unwilling to demonstrate their precocious abilities in public for fear of making others feel inadequate. Extremely gifted children can also reach the ceilings of various test instruments if you wait until they are older to test them (some profoundly gifted children even reach the ceiling of the Stanford-Binet LM by the age of eight or nine). With any other exceptionality, we would not deliberately wait until several years of elementary school have passed in order to identify the exceptionality."
The last sentence hints at the big problem. Many people see gifted education as some kind of reward. So you wait until all kids have been adequately introduced to formal schooling, and then reward the kids who get good grades with pull-outs that highlight bugs, Robin Hood, the culture of Japan, etc. Done right, gifted education should, instead, be an intervention for kids who need it. Kids are screened for hearing issues at birth because we know that failure to identify such a problem will stunt their learning for life. Likewise, failure to identify and accommodate extreme intelligence can stunt children, too.
Monday, January 07, 2008
From Good to Great Kids
I hope everyone had a wonderful break. Welcome back to a new year of Gifted Exchange!
I've been fascinated to see the posts piling up on the "Gifted Kids, Bad Behavior" entry. While many people assume that gifted kids are the teachers' pets, quietly completing assignments ahead of time and becoming star pupils, this is not always the case. Gifted kids, no less than other kids, can act out when they're bored or frustrated, and unfortunately, gifted kids are probably more likely than other kids to be bored or frustrated in classes that don't challenge them. Viewed in that context, some behavior problems make a lot of sense. If I had to go every day to a job I hated, that I hadn't chosen, and that bored me senseless, I would not be a happy camper either!
But, broadly, I think the topic touches a nerve. When kids are having trouble in school, parents start to wonder if they're doing something wrong, and if they are, if this is causing permanent damage. We also wonder if there's anything we, as parents, can do, to actually help our kids become happy, successful people.
Which brings me to the actual subject head of this first Gifted Exchange blog post of 2008. I've recently read Jim Collins' perennial best-seller of a business book, From Good to Great. The book looks at companies whose stock performance kept pace with the market for many years, then outperformed the market by many multiples over the next few years. What happened to make these companies go from good to great? What lessons can managers take from these examples?
Since I write about education, I got to thinking: This question can also be asked of child-rearing. Is there anything parents can do to help kids go from good raw material to great lives?
It's a much more difficult question, of course. For starters, defining "great" for people is completely subjective. Public companies are supposed to generate great returns for their stockholders. That is their job, full stop. But while some people might consider a happily married small town second grade teacher to have a good life, others would think that's kind of boring, particularly if the kid grew up saying she wanted to be a Nobel Prize winning physicist. Some people think $50,000 is a great income. Some people find $100,000 to be inadequate. Maybe someone has started a successful business, has a large, caring family, but is still unhappy with her life because of a chronic weight problem. I don't think there's a single metric people could agree on as a "great" outcome.
There's also the difficulty of social science data. I spend a lot of my time perusing education and sociological research, and if there's anything hunting through footnotes and equations has taught me, it's that separating out correlation and causation is like counting angels dancing on the head of a pin. For instance, we know that kids from higher income families tend to do better on standardized tests than kids from lower income families. But is this because income buys children the advantages of better schools, tutoring if they need it, etc? Or is it because it correlates with other things, like parents who care about academics and intact families?
That said, there is a point to all this musing. And that is my list of Things That Actually Matter. Similar to the way magazines like to end the year by cranking out top ten lists of the best movies and biggest scandals, I've been trying to come up with a list of factors that actually matter in children's outcomes -- factors that can help kids go from good to great. I've got five here, and I welcome suggestions of others. In no particular order, they are:
1. Smart teachers. This was an interesting one to me. I've been researching efforts to attract higher-quality math teachers to schools, but everyone has their own opinion of what higher-quality means. A few people have done some fascinating studies on this. One particularly compelling one from Ronald Ferguson looked at the math scores of children, based on the scores of their teachers on the 1986 Texas Examination of Current Administrators and Teachers (a basic literary skills test Texas administered to see how the state's teachers stacked up). He found districts in which kids entered with high scores but teachers had relatively low scores, and he found districts in which the opposite occurred. It turns out that, over 10 years, if students in two districts started out equal, but in one the teachers scored, on average, two standard deviations above the other on the TECAT, the student test scores would diverge by 1.7 standard deviations. In typical dry academic prose, Ferguson noted that "This is a large effect." A study conducted by the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago found that, in high school math, one semester with a teacher who was in the top 5% of quality corresponded to an additional gain of 0.3-0.5 grade equivalents.
This one is hard for parents to do much about if you're committed to a particular school, as good and bad teachers can teach side by side. But it is a large effect. It matters.
2. Limit television. This one is less of a surprise. There have been thousands of studies on children and television, and while a few have shown some positive outcomes, many more have not. Television desensitizes children to violence, enforces gender and racial stereotypes, makes them whine for toys, corresponds with obesity and other health problems, and -- even when controlling for confounding factors -- watching more of it is associated with higher drop-out rates and lower college completion rates by age 26. Even educational television hampers children's ability to entertain themselves, to the point where new minivans on the market are advertising that they come with TVs in them so you can drive to Grandma's in peace. Heaven forbid children actually look out the window, talk to each other, etc. Even having a TV on in a room with a small child interferes with the child's focus. Better to treat it as a planned, occasional diversion, rather than a constant companion.
3. Praise children for effort, not ability. We've covered this one on Gifted Exchange before. Kids who are told they are "smart" or other positive attributes they cannot control become more risk averse because they don't want to try activities in which this label might not prove correct. We've all seen gifted children who breeze through high school, then fail in college because they don't know how to actually tackle something that isn't easy for them. Some drop out, claiming that no one understands their genius. Children praised for effort, on the other hand -- which is within their control -- are inclined to try harder things. Over time, kids who continually try harder things will achieve more than those who refuse to do so.
4. Keep the family intact. This is another one that could justify many books in its own right -- and has. Some of the trouble with single parent families is economic. Given that the vast majority of mothers are involved in the labor force to some degree, two parent families are going to almost always have more money than single parent families. Children from higher-income families have a lot of advantages over children raised near the poverty level. But, over the years, researchers have attempted to untangle the economic elements from the family break-down elements (for one excellently researched look at this, see Sarah McLanahan and Gary Sandefur's Growing Up With a Single Parent from Harvard University Press). Yes, many single parents do a heroic job, and deserve nothing but praise. From a sheer statistical perspective, though, overwhelmingly, the research shows that growing up with two parents is better than growing up with one.
5. Get children involved in some sort of constructive activity alongside adults. We've also covered this one with my posts on the Cristo Rey schools. These inner-city Catholic schools do a great job setting high expectations for children. But their most brilliant insight was born of financial necessity. Children at these schools work in corporate offices for 1-2 days a week in order to earn their tuition. The work itself isn't much (filing and faxing). The net result, however, is that kids see the kinds of lives they could have if they finish school, go to college and make something of themselves. This gives them the discipline to counter their more childish current impulses and to think long-term. This discovery isn't unique to Cristo Rey; I've encountered some other mentoring programs that work on the same principle (one Ernst & Young program raised the graduation rate to 90% among its Bronx student participants by bringing these kids to the gleaming Times Square E&Y headquarters fairly frequently). I suspect this is one of the reasons volunteer work appears to have such a good effect on kids. It's not just that they're volunteering, it's that they're working alongside adults -- the people they will someday become-- to accomplish something. Kids today spend way too much time with other kids. The modern teen culture this breeds focuses on things that don't matter, and inspires a lot of alienation. Volunteering, church activities, part-time jobs, and other such mixed-age activities get kids out of the world of TV, clothes, Britney Spears, etc., and hence can do a lot of good.
So anyway, that's a start on the list. What else should be on there? And if you've made it all the way down to the bottom of the post, thanks so much. We'll get back to specific gifted issues soon enough...
I've been fascinated to see the posts piling up on the "Gifted Kids, Bad Behavior" entry. While many people assume that gifted kids are the teachers' pets, quietly completing assignments ahead of time and becoming star pupils, this is not always the case. Gifted kids, no less than other kids, can act out when they're bored or frustrated, and unfortunately, gifted kids are probably more likely than other kids to be bored or frustrated in classes that don't challenge them. Viewed in that context, some behavior problems make a lot of sense. If I had to go every day to a job I hated, that I hadn't chosen, and that bored me senseless, I would not be a happy camper either!
But, broadly, I think the topic touches a nerve. When kids are having trouble in school, parents start to wonder if they're doing something wrong, and if they are, if this is causing permanent damage. We also wonder if there's anything we, as parents, can do, to actually help our kids become happy, successful people.
Which brings me to the actual subject head of this first Gifted Exchange blog post of 2008. I've recently read Jim Collins' perennial best-seller of a business book, From Good to Great. The book looks at companies whose stock performance kept pace with the market for many years, then outperformed the market by many multiples over the next few years. What happened to make these companies go from good to great? What lessons can managers take from these examples?
Since I write about education, I got to thinking: This question can also be asked of child-rearing. Is there anything parents can do to help kids go from good raw material to great lives?
It's a much more difficult question, of course. For starters, defining "great" for people is completely subjective. Public companies are supposed to generate great returns for their stockholders. That is their job, full stop. But while some people might consider a happily married small town second grade teacher to have a good life, others would think that's kind of boring, particularly if the kid grew up saying she wanted to be a Nobel Prize winning physicist. Some people think $50,000 is a great income. Some people find $100,000 to be inadequate. Maybe someone has started a successful business, has a large, caring family, but is still unhappy with her life because of a chronic weight problem. I don't think there's a single metric people could agree on as a "great" outcome.
There's also the difficulty of social science data. I spend a lot of my time perusing education and sociological research, and if there's anything hunting through footnotes and equations has taught me, it's that separating out correlation and causation is like counting angels dancing on the head of a pin. For instance, we know that kids from higher income families tend to do better on standardized tests than kids from lower income families. But is this because income buys children the advantages of better schools, tutoring if they need it, etc? Or is it because it correlates with other things, like parents who care about academics and intact families?
That said, there is a point to all this musing. And that is my list of Things That Actually Matter. Similar to the way magazines like to end the year by cranking out top ten lists of the best movies and biggest scandals, I've been trying to come up with a list of factors that actually matter in children's outcomes -- factors that can help kids go from good to great. I've got five here, and I welcome suggestions of others. In no particular order, they are:
1. Smart teachers. This was an interesting one to me. I've been researching efforts to attract higher-quality math teachers to schools, but everyone has their own opinion of what higher-quality means. A few people have done some fascinating studies on this. One particularly compelling one from Ronald Ferguson looked at the math scores of children, based on the scores of their teachers on the 1986 Texas Examination of Current Administrators and Teachers (a basic literary skills test Texas administered to see how the state's teachers stacked up). He found districts in which kids entered with high scores but teachers had relatively low scores, and he found districts in which the opposite occurred. It turns out that, over 10 years, if students in two districts started out equal, but in one the teachers scored, on average, two standard deviations above the other on the TECAT, the student test scores would diverge by 1.7 standard deviations. In typical dry academic prose, Ferguson noted that "This is a large effect." A study conducted by the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago found that, in high school math, one semester with a teacher who was in the top 5% of quality corresponded to an additional gain of 0.3-0.5 grade equivalents.
This one is hard for parents to do much about if you're committed to a particular school, as good and bad teachers can teach side by side. But it is a large effect. It matters.
2. Limit television. This one is less of a surprise. There have been thousands of studies on children and television, and while a few have shown some positive outcomes, many more have not. Television desensitizes children to violence, enforces gender and racial stereotypes, makes them whine for toys, corresponds with obesity and other health problems, and -- even when controlling for confounding factors -- watching more of it is associated with higher drop-out rates and lower college completion rates by age 26. Even educational television hampers children's ability to entertain themselves, to the point where new minivans on the market are advertising that they come with TVs in them so you can drive to Grandma's in peace. Heaven forbid children actually look out the window, talk to each other, etc. Even having a TV on in a room with a small child interferes with the child's focus. Better to treat it as a planned, occasional diversion, rather than a constant companion.
3. Praise children for effort, not ability. We've covered this one on Gifted Exchange before. Kids who are told they are "smart" or other positive attributes they cannot control become more risk averse because they don't want to try activities in which this label might not prove correct. We've all seen gifted children who breeze through high school, then fail in college because they don't know how to actually tackle something that isn't easy for them. Some drop out, claiming that no one understands their genius. Children praised for effort, on the other hand -- which is within their control -- are inclined to try harder things. Over time, kids who continually try harder things will achieve more than those who refuse to do so.
4. Keep the family intact. This is another one that could justify many books in its own right -- and has. Some of the trouble with single parent families is economic. Given that the vast majority of mothers are involved in the labor force to some degree, two parent families are going to almost always have more money than single parent families. Children from higher-income families have a lot of advantages over children raised near the poverty level. But, over the years, researchers have attempted to untangle the economic elements from the family break-down elements (for one excellently researched look at this, see Sarah McLanahan and Gary Sandefur's Growing Up With a Single Parent from Harvard University Press). Yes, many single parents do a heroic job, and deserve nothing but praise. From a sheer statistical perspective, though, overwhelmingly, the research shows that growing up with two parents is better than growing up with one.
5. Get children involved in some sort of constructive activity alongside adults. We've also covered this one with my posts on the Cristo Rey schools. These inner-city Catholic schools do a great job setting high expectations for children. But their most brilliant insight was born of financial necessity. Children at these schools work in corporate offices for 1-2 days a week in order to earn their tuition. The work itself isn't much (filing and faxing). The net result, however, is that kids see the kinds of lives they could have if they finish school, go to college and make something of themselves. This gives them the discipline to counter their more childish current impulses and to think long-term. This discovery isn't unique to Cristo Rey; I've encountered some other mentoring programs that work on the same principle (one Ernst & Young program raised the graduation rate to 90% among its Bronx student participants by bringing these kids to the gleaming Times Square E&Y headquarters fairly frequently). I suspect this is one of the reasons volunteer work appears to have such a good effect on kids. It's not just that they're volunteering, it's that they're working alongside adults -- the people they will someday become-- to accomplish something. Kids today spend way too much time with other kids. The modern teen culture this breeds focuses on things that don't matter, and inspires a lot of alienation. Volunteering, church activities, part-time jobs, and other such mixed-age activities get kids out of the world of TV, clothes, Britney Spears, etc., and hence can do a lot of good.
So anyway, that's a start on the list. What else should be on there? And if you've made it all the way down to the bottom of the post, thanks so much. We'll get back to specific gifted issues soon enough...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
