Teacher Training
I recently came across an article in the Examiner about one district's efforts to give its gifted program teachers special certification. You can read the piece here. By next school year, all the gifted teachers in Carroll County, a district in Maryland, will have taken a six course sequence through Johns Hopkins (a university with a deep interest in gifted education, thanks to the pioneering efforts of the late Dr. Julian Stanley).
Teacher training is actually one of the biggest problem areas in gifted education. It's also one that's not talked about much. As the Davidsons and I wrote in Genius Denied, there are two main issues.
First, since most gifted children remain in regular classrooms, all teachers need training on how to best teach gifted children, just as they learn about teaching other populations. Yet very few teachers colleges require any courses on gifted learners. Few even offer them.
Second, since we hope that eventually gifted children will be in accelerated academic classes created specifically for them, this country needs a critical mass of teachers specifically certified in gifted ed. Yet many teachers colleges don't offer concentrations in gifted education, and only half the states offer certification in this area.
So it's good that Carroll County is going above the requirements to make sure its teachers know how to best run classrooms of accelerated learners. A Gifted Child Quarterly study a few years ago found that teachers with three to five graduate courses in gifted education were significantly more effective in instruction, and in creating a positive classroom environment, then teachers with no specialized coursework.
In general I'm wary of teachers colleges (they can be ideologically strange places). I'm also wary of requirements that people spend years learning to be teachers (given the shortage of math and science teachers, summer boot camps and night classes for mid-career professionals are probably fine). But I don't like that gifted education gets shut out of programs that almost all teachers have to go through. It's good to see that in Carroll County, they're not.
Thursday, July 27, 2006
Tuesday, July 25, 2006
Those Crazy Statistics
The irascible Charles Murray is back today, writing on the op-ed page of the Wall Street Journal about black-white gaps in test scores achieved under No Child Left Behind.
Schools and districts are required to narrow the gap in test scores between various racial groups in order to receive certain levels of funding, or not be penalized. Of course, given the mean scores of different groups, and the number of people in each group, changes in mean scores can have very different effects on the gap, depending on where those means lie. Differences in pass rates, another key factor in NCLB tests, are also subject to the whims of statistics put in the hands of people who have a vested interest in seeing them go one way or the other.
For instance, Murray quotes Pres. Bush's statements about Texas. There, 73% of white students passed the math test in 1994, while only 38% of African-American students passed it. In 2003, Bush was happy to note, the gap was only 10%. That seems great, indicating that African-American students have made a great deal of progress -- more than their white counterparts. But it's somewhat misleading. Say in one state, the pass score is relatively low -- where many students will be able to achieve it. If one group of students has a higher mean score than another, raising each group's mean score by, say, 10 points, will naturally narrow the pass-rate gap by more than that (if the scores follow standard bell curve distributions). On the other hand, if a pass rate is set particularly low in another state (say, only 40% of all students will pass), a gain in everyone's test scores could in fact make the gap appear worse, Murray notes.
Both districts under that scenario will have improved test scores. But because the second district will appear not to have closed the gap between groups, it could suffer penalties, while the first one will be rewarded.
Studies that have come out earlier this year about state NCLB tests have found that indeed, most states are making them ridiculously easy to pass in order to make sure that pass rates are high and racial gaps appear to narrow. Given how states are citing NCLB as a reason to move away from gifted education to focus on improving everyone's scores, it would be nice to get slightly more meaningful data. As Murray notes of NCLB, in practice, "It holds good students hostage to the performance of the least talented, at a time when the economic future of the country depends more than ever on the performance of the most talented."
The irascible Charles Murray is back today, writing on the op-ed page of the Wall Street Journal about black-white gaps in test scores achieved under No Child Left Behind.
Schools and districts are required to narrow the gap in test scores between various racial groups in order to receive certain levels of funding, or not be penalized. Of course, given the mean scores of different groups, and the number of people in each group, changes in mean scores can have very different effects on the gap, depending on where those means lie. Differences in pass rates, another key factor in NCLB tests, are also subject to the whims of statistics put in the hands of people who have a vested interest in seeing them go one way or the other.
For instance, Murray quotes Pres. Bush's statements about Texas. There, 73% of white students passed the math test in 1994, while only 38% of African-American students passed it. In 2003, Bush was happy to note, the gap was only 10%. That seems great, indicating that African-American students have made a great deal of progress -- more than their white counterparts. But it's somewhat misleading. Say in one state, the pass score is relatively low -- where many students will be able to achieve it. If one group of students has a higher mean score than another, raising each group's mean score by, say, 10 points, will naturally narrow the pass-rate gap by more than that (if the scores follow standard bell curve distributions). On the other hand, if a pass rate is set particularly low in another state (say, only 40% of all students will pass), a gain in everyone's test scores could in fact make the gap appear worse, Murray notes.
Both districts under that scenario will have improved test scores. But because the second district will appear not to have closed the gap between groups, it could suffer penalties, while the first one will be rewarded.
Studies that have come out earlier this year about state NCLB tests have found that indeed, most states are making them ridiculously easy to pass in order to make sure that pass rates are high and racial gaps appear to narrow. Given how states are citing NCLB as a reason to move away from gifted education to focus on improving everyone's scores, it would be nice to get slightly more meaningful data. As Murray notes of NCLB, in practice, "It holds good students hostage to the performance of the least talented, at a time when the economic future of the country depends more than ever on the performance of the most talented."
Friday, July 21, 2006
Nerds and Geeks
So the other day I took my computer to Best Buy’s famed “Geek Squad” for repair. Leave aside the fact that they didn’t manage to repair it (apparently there was a motherboard problem; I’ve got a shiny new laptop being shipped to me now). They were a collection of nice, normal-looking young men and women. Their advertisement posters, however, were another story. In them, characters in horrible glasses, hiked up black polyester pants and white socks promised to fix your computer, rain or shine, “Sci-fi convention in town or not.”
Now, I suppose that Best Buy’s ad designers are using “geek” in an affectionate way, These are their colleagues, after all. Referring to these very normal-looking individuals as geeks is likely just a way to make the public think they’re competent when it comes to fixing computers.
Indeed, broadly, there seems to be a move by young people to reclaim words like “nerd” and “geek” and use them positively. I’ve been reading a number of articles recently on “nerd camp.” For three of my early teenage summers, I attended the Center for Talent Development’s summer camps at Northwestern University, studying geometry, computers and literature with gifted kids from all over the Midwest.
We never called it nerd camp. But now kids do so freely, telling reporters that’s what they call similar camps at Duke, Johns Hopkins and other universities.
When people reclaim words, they take some of the sting out of them. That’s a good thing. But I can’t help thinking that when gifted young people themselves use such words frequently, other people feel they’ve got a license to do so, too. As things tend to go, these names will then be aimed at younger gifted kids, particularly ones who haven’t made their peace with the whole thing yet. So while I grant that the Geek Squad is a great brand name, I wish they and the nerd-camp attendees would have come up with another way to talk about themselves.
So the other day I took my computer to Best Buy’s famed “Geek Squad” for repair. Leave aside the fact that they didn’t manage to repair it (apparently there was a motherboard problem; I’ve got a shiny new laptop being shipped to me now). They were a collection of nice, normal-looking young men and women. Their advertisement posters, however, were another story. In them, characters in horrible glasses, hiked up black polyester pants and white socks promised to fix your computer, rain or shine, “Sci-fi convention in town or not.”
Now, I suppose that Best Buy’s ad designers are using “geek” in an affectionate way, These are their colleagues, after all. Referring to these very normal-looking individuals as geeks is likely just a way to make the public think they’re competent when it comes to fixing computers.
Indeed, broadly, there seems to be a move by young people to reclaim words like “nerd” and “geek” and use them positively. I’ve been reading a number of articles recently on “nerd camp.” For three of my early teenage summers, I attended the Center for Talent Development’s summer camps at Northwestern University, studying geometry, computers and literature with gifted kids from all over the Midwest.
We never called it nerd camp. But now kids do so freely, telling reporters that’s what they call similar camps at Duke, Johns Hopkins and other universities.
When people reclaim words, they take some of the sting out of them. That’s a good thing. But I can’t help thinking that when gifted young people themselves use such words frequently, other people feel they’ve got a license to do so, too. As things tend to go, these names will then be aimed at younger gifted kids, particularly ones who haven’t made their peace with the whole thing yet. So while I grant that the Geek Squad is a great brand name, I wish they and the nerd-camp attendees would have come up with another way to talk about themselves.
Tuesday, July 18, 2006
Gifted Students Shy from Fast-Tracking
Fans of Prof. Miraca Gross (of the University of New South Wales in Australia) will be happy to learn she and her colleagues are undertaking a study of how Australian schools deal with gifted children. Gross has spent years advocating radical acceleration for profoundly gifted kids. Of course, in Australia, as in the U.S., sometimes it feels like shouting into the wind, according a recent
article in The Australian.
“I'd rather be doing well in an easier grade than be behind in a harder one,” one girl named Ceili told the newspaper.
Her attitude, the paper notes, reflects that of many educators, who worry that acceleration puts too much “pressure” on students.
For whatever reason, in the past few years, mass media in the US -- and Australia, which does not escape the English language media echo chamber -- have decided that kids are under too much pressure. They feel pressured to do well on tests, get into good colleges, participate in the right activites, etc.
Of course, given children’s actual test scores, the percentage of kids enrolled in college who need remedial classes and other such realities, I’d say they could use a bit more pressure. Or maybe any pressure they’re feeling isn’t applied in a direction that achieves results. I’d also point out that children in the US watch an average of 4 hours of TV a day, and some measurements in Australia have clocked well over two hours a day for children. If families turned off the tube, some of that time pressure might be alleviated.
But I digress. Fortunately, Prof. Gross has several good responses for those who worry that accelerated gifted kids will be under too much pressure of the kind news stories claim all kids are under. “Most of these kids would be topping the class if they went up a grade. They don't realise that,” she says.
And then the kicker: “Teachers equate acceleration with pushing the child. Teachers are afraid of hurting a kid by pushing them, so they feel better doing nothing -- but that can in fact do more harm.”
Hopefully, Prof. Gross’s new study will lay the ground work for acceleration becoming the default option for kids who need more challenge -- the accepted option -- rather than something strange and “pressured.”
Fans of Prof. Miraca Gross (of the University of New South Wales in Australia) will be happy to learn she and her colleagues are undertaking a study of how Australian schools deal with gifted children. Gross has spent years advocating radical acceleration for profoundly gifted kids. Of course, in Australia, as in the U.S., sometimes it feels like shouting into the wind, according a recent
article in The Australian.
“I'd rather be doing well in an easier grade than be behind in a harder one,” one girl named Ceili told the newspaper.
Her attitude, the paper notes, reflects that of many educators, who worry that acceleration puts too much “pressure” on students.
For whatever reason, in the past few years, mass media in the US -- and Australia, which does not escape the English language media echo chamber -- have decided that kids are under too much pressure. They feel pressured to do well on tests, get into good colleges, participate in the right activites, etc.
Of course, given children’s actual test scores, the percentage of kids enrolled in college who need remedial classes and other such realities, I’d say they could use a bit more pressure. Or maybe any pressure they’re feeling isn’t applied in a direction that achieves results. I’d also point out that children in the US watch an average of 4 hours of TV a day, and some measurements in Australia have clocked well over two hours a day for children. If families turned off the tube, some of that time pressure might be alleviated.
But I digress. Fortunately, Prof. Gross has several good responses for those who worry that accelerated gifted kids will be under too much pressure of the kind news stories claim all kids are under. “Most of these kids would be topping the class if they went up a grade. They don't realise that,” she says.
And then the kicker: “Teachers equate acceleration with pushing the child. Teachers are afraid of hurting a kid by pushing them, so they feel better doing nothing -- but that can in fact do more harm.”
Hopefully, Prof. Gross’s new study will lay the ground work for acceleration becoming the default option for kids who need more challenge -- the accepted option -- rather than something strange and “pressured.”
Thursday, July 13, 2006
Prodigies in the age of Big Media
Terry Teachout, the Wall Street Journal's drama critic, wrote a fascinating profile of a young composer named Jay Greenberg in a recent issue (unfortunately, the WSJ web page is subscription only, so I can't give a link). Greenberg is 14 years old.
He's written five symphonies and more than a dozen piano sonatas. Samuel Zyman, his teacher at Juilliard, compared him to such composing prodigies as Mendelssohn and Mozart.
Greenberg, unlike Mozart or even the more recent Benjamin Britten, though, is growing up in an age of celebrity. Our 24 hour news culture likes to find the next big thing, chew them through and spit them out.
Teachout recently listened to Greenberg's debut CD, to be released by Sony this fall. Greenberg's Fifth Symphony is strikingly well-made, he noted, though it is conservative (young Greenberg seems to be consciously following Brahms -- not a bad person to imitate, of course, but composing is about creating something new). Because it is conservative, it's unlikely that anyone will be listening to it 200 years from now, Teachout states.
So what? We won't be listining to Beyonce, either. But quality does matter with classical music, which isn't written to be flash-in-the-pan. The fact that Sony rushed to get a CD out while Greenberg is a marketable young prodigy means that he hasn't had time to perfect his craft in private. "If his handlers have their way, the immature student efforts he might someday have chosen to suppress will instead be recorded for posterity and hawked to a world-wide audience with a short attention span," Teachout writes. When audiences have a short attention span, you need to go out with your best shot. I have old stories I've written stashed places around the house. Let me just say, I'm glad they stay in the house and the world will never see them. Sometimes when young people get rushed into things -- remember the Opal Mehta flap? -- their otherwise promising adult careers get snuffed out before they can start.
On the other hand, I think people -- including Teachout -- worry too much about prodigies losing their childhoods in order to pursue their dreams. He cites Ruth Slenczynska, a pianist who made a recital debut at age six and later wrote a memoir called "Forbidden Childhood." Does that "say it all" as Teachout claims? Not really. Plenty of people who don't get to pursue their talents have miserable childhoods. Prodigies likewise may or may not enjoy being children. My guess is most wouldn't anyway.
Since they're profoundly gifted, their brains will be years ahead of where their ages and bodies allow society to interact with them. That's seldom a recipe for a happy youth.
What does make people happy, though, is losing themselves in doing something they love. Which makes the hours many a prodigy spends practicing per day more like therapy than the child abuse popular culture makes it out to be.
Terry Teachout, the Wall Street Journal's drama critic, wrote a fascinating profile of a young composer named Jay Greenberg in a recent issue (unfortunately, the WSJ web page is subscription only, so I can't give a link). Greenberg is 14 years old.
He's written five symphonies and more than a dozen piano sonatas. Samuel Zyman, his teacher at Juilliard, compared him to such composing prodigies as Mendelssohn and Mozart.
Greenberg, unlike Mozart or even the more recent Benjamin Britten, though, is growing up in an age of celebrity. Our 24 hour news culture likes to find the next big thing, chew them through and spit them out.
Teachout recently listened to Greenberg's debut CD, to be released by Sony this fall. Greenberg's Fifth Symphony is strikingly well-made, he noted, though it is conservative (young Greenberg seems to be consciously following Brahms -- not a bad person to imitate, of course, but composing is about creating something new). Because it is conservative, it's unlikely that anyone will be listening to it 200 years from now, Teachout states.
So what? We won't be listining to Beyonce, either. But quality does matter with classical music, which isn't written to be flash-in-the-pan. The fact that Sony rushed to get a CD out while Greenberg is a marketable young prodigy means that he hasn't had time to perfect his craft in private. "If his handlers have their way, the immature student efforts he might someday have chosen to suppress will instead be recorded for posterity and hawked to a world-wide audience with a short attention span," Teachout writes. When audiences have a short attention span, you need to go out with your best shot. I have old stories I've written stashed places around the house. Let me just say, I'm glad they stay in the house and the world will never see them. Sometimes when young people get rushed into things -- remember the Opal Mehta flap? -- their otherwise promising adult careers get snuffed out before they can start.
On the other hand, I think people -- including Teachout -- worry too much about prodigies losing their childhoods in order to pursue their dreams. He cites Ruth Slenczynska, a pianist who made a recital debut at age six and later wrote a memoir called "Forbidden Childhood." Does that "say it all" as Teachout claims? Not really. Plenty of people who don't get to pursue their talents have miserable childhoods. Prodigies likewise may or may not enjoy being children. My guess is most wouldn't anyway.
Since they're profoundly gifted, their brains will be years ahead of where their ages and bodies allow society to interact with them. That's seldom a recipe for a happy youth.
What does make people happy, though, is losing themselves in doing something they love. Which makes the hours many a prodigy spends practicing per day more like therapy than the child abuse popular culture makes it out to be.
Tuesday, July 11, 2006
Insufferable Genius
Thanks to blog reader Kim Moldofsky for sending this one in... A parent of a highly gifted 3-year-old wrote in to John Rosemond, a McClatchy Newspapers advice columnist, about how to deal with the daughter's lack of respect for adult authority. Now, the 3-year-old was definitely getting away with some bad behavior (such as telling her grandmother that she was the boss of the house). But reading the response, boy, does Rosemond have a chip on his shoulder about something.
You can read the exchange here. Sample quotes include:
*"You're not going to make any progress with this child as long as you think you're dealing with some unique being that represents a quantum evolutionary leap for all of humanity."
*"She is rapidly turning into a 3-year-old insufferable brat, and no one is more insufferable than an insufferable genius."
*"Stop treating her like she's an adult! Take her to a restaurant, and before you go in, let her know that you are doing the ordering, not her. If she doesn't like it, take her home and serve her beans and franks. Stop letting her make decisions that you would not be letting her make if her IQ was 100. Pick out her clothes for her in the morning, and don't let her come out of her room until she has put on what you picked out."
*"In every situation with her, ask yourself, "How would I handle this if my daughter was a normal, run-of-the-mill, garden-variety 3-year-old?" Then treat her that way, and if she doesn't like it, send her to her room until she's willing to accept her new reality."
I'm curious how the parents of precocious young kids who read this blog have managed to keep their children in check without keeping them from making all decisions on things like clothes. I thought raising self-reliant children was a good thing... But even more, I think Rosemond doesn't recognize that there are certain discipline issues that arise when a child's brain is older than her body. Simply berating parents for acknowledging this doesn't help. How have you dealt with this?
Thanks to blog reader Kim Moldofsky for sending this one in... A parent of a highly gifted 3-year-old wrote in to John Rosemond, a McClatchy Newspapers advice columnist, about how to deal with the daughter's lack of respect for adult authority. Now, the 3-year-old was definitely getting away with some bad behavior (such as telling her grandmother that she was the boss of the house). But reading the response, boy, does Rosemond have a chip on his shoulder about something.
You can read the exchange here. Sample quotes include:
*"You're not going to make any progress with this child as long as you think you're dealing with some unique being that represents a quantum evolutionary leap for all of humanity."
*"She is rapidly turning into a 3-year-old insufferable brat, and no one is more insufferable than an insufferable genius."
*"Stop treating her like she's an adult! Take her to a restaurant, and before you go in, let her know that you are doing the ordering, not her. If she doesn't like it, take her home and serve her beans and franks. Stop letting her make decisions that you would not be letting her make if her IQ was 100. Pick out her clothes for her in the morning, and don't let her come out of her room until she has put on what you picked out."
*"In every situation with her, ask yourself, "How would I handle this if my daughter was a normal, run-of-the-mill, garden-variety 3-year-old?" Then treat her that way, and if she doesn't like it, send her to her room until she's willing to accept her new reality."
I'm curious how the parents of precocious young kids who read this blog have managed to keep their children in check without keeping them from making all decisions on things like clothes. I thought raising self-reliant children was a good thing... But even more, I think Rosemond doesn't recognize that there are certain discipline issues that arise when a child's brain is older than her body. Simply berating parents for acknowledging this doesn't help. How have you dealt with this?
Friday, July 07, 2006
Keeping Our Edge
The Educational Testing Service (the folks who run the SAT) recently released the results of its annual poll on how American schools are doing. The results, which can be found here, show a few interesting results for gifted kids and folks who care about them.
For starters, the poll provides a useful teaching tool on how answers vary depending on how you ask the question. Half of Americans said schools are doing enough to challenge the brightest students; 46% said schools were coming up short. Among college faculty, 69% said schools were coming up short. Fair enough.
Pollsters also asked respondents to identify major problems facing the schools (from a list). 64% of Americans said that it was a big problem that gifted kids were not being sufficiently challenged to be able to compete with the best students from around the world. 84% of college faculty identified this as a big problem.
So in both cases, a good portion of people said the lack of challenge was a big problem, but they wouldn't claim schools weren't doing enough? Hmmm.... I'm still trying to figure this one out.
The Educational Testing Service (the folks who run the SAT) recently released the results of its annual poll on how American schools are doing. The results, which can be found here, show a few interesting results for gifted kids and folks who care about them.
For starters, the poll provides a useful teaching tool on how answers vary depending on how you ask the question. Half of Americans said schools are doing enough to challenge the brightest students; 46% said schools were coming up short. Among college faculty, 69% said schools were coming up short. Fair enough.
Pollsters also asked respondents to identify major problems facing the schools (from a list). 64% of Americans said that it was a big problem that gifted kids were not being sufficiently challenged to be able to compete with the best students from around the world. 84% of college faculty identified this as a big problem.
So in both cases, a good portion of people said the lack of challenge was a big problem, but they wouldn't claim schools weren't doing enough? Hmmm.... I'm still trying to figure this one out.
Wednesday, July 05, 2006
What Percent Gifted... Again...
From time to time, I come across an article that basically hits all the hot buttons in gifted education in one fell swoop. A recent article in the Springfield, Illinois State Journal-Register falls into that bucket.
The Springfield school district has created the Iles School for gifted elementary school children in the city. All kindergartners take a standard intelligence test; the children who test highest are invited to look into the Iles school.
So far so good. Education would be in a much better state in this country if all districts had advanced schools for gifted children, and if all districts cast as wide a net as possible to see which children needed the challenges a school for the gifted can supply.
But after the test, things get a little funny in Springfield. The district identifies more children as gifted than can be placed at Iles. So once parents respond to the notice letter, and ask to be considered for Iles, their children's names are placed in a lottery. Which means that every year, a certain percentage of parents learn their children are gifted, according to Springfield, and then are told "sorry!" This happens randomly; a child with an IQ of 160+ who may be completely failed by a regular school can be turned down in favor of a child with an IQ of 120, who might do fine in a good, regular school.
Furthermore, even getting into the lottery requires parents to receive the letter from the district, recognize that Iles might be a good choice, and take the initiative to be included. Not surprisingly, middle-class parents are more likely to take these steps; indeed, Springfield determined that black parents were participating in the lottery at lower rates than white parents, even though all their children had been identified as gifted. So much for the district being inclusive.
At the same time, people have been worried that Springfield's high rate of giftedness (about 9% of children are deemed gifted after the IQ test) means the program will be watered down. There's something to this. Children whose IQs put them in the top tenth of 1% of the population have very different needs than those whose IQs put them in the top 5-10%.
But this leaves the question: How should Springfield structure its program? I'm guessing that one of the reasons so many students are identified as gifted is that the district worries a higher cut-off will mean fewer kids from minority backgrounds or lower socioeconomic levels will attend Iles. I think they worry needlessly -- gifted kids come in all colors. But if some parents are responding at lower rates than other parents, the wide net concept isn't working as well as it should.
My preference would be to set a cut-off for the gifted designation in Springfield at exactly the level that the Iles school can accommodate. Then children who test above that level should be assigned automatically to Iles. No opting in. No lottery. (Parents could pull children out if they wished).
This would be an arbitrary cut-off, for sure. If Iles built more classrooms, the definition of gifted would expand. If there was a baby boom in Springfield, the gifted definition would likewise shrink to a smaller percentage. But designating children as gifted is always somewhat arbitrary when it comes to cut-offs. It is less arbitrary, though, when it comes to the individual highly gifted children who need special challenges. Children in the top tenth of 1% are just different than other kids. Of course, that's a hard thing to build a broad policy around! Continuing to use the intelligence test, and having parents opt out, rather than in, maximizes the chances of those highly gifted kids getting the education they need.
I'm curious how other people would like to see Springfield structure its gifted program.
From time to time, I come across an article that basically hits all the hot buttons in gifted education in one fell swoop. A recent article in the Springfield, Illinois State Journal-Register falls into that bucket.
The Springfield school district has created the Iles School for gifted elementary school children in the city. All kindergartners take a standard intelligence test; the children who test highest are invited to look into the Iles school.
So far so good. Education would be in a much better state in this country if all districts had advanced schools for gifted children, and if all districts cast as wide a net as possible to see which children needed the challenges a school for the gifted can supply.
But after the test, things get a little funny in Springfield. The district identifies more children as gifted than can be placed at Iles. So once parents respond to the notice letter, and ask to be considered for Iles, their children's names are placed in a lottery. Which means that every year, a certain percentage of parents learn their children are gifted, according to Springfield, and then are told "sorry!" This happens randomly; a child with an IQ of 160+ who may be completely failed by a regular school can be turned down in favor of a child with an IQ of 120, who might do fine in a good, regular school.
Furthermore, even getting into the lottery requires parents to receive the letter from the district, recognize that Iles might be a good choice, and take the initiative to be included. Not surprisingly, middle-class parents are more likely to take these steps; indeed, Springfield determined that black parents were participating in the lottery at lower rates than white parents, even though all their children had been identified as gifted. So much for the district being inclusive.
At the same time, people have been worried that Springfield's high rate of giftedness (about 9% of children are deemed gifted after the IQ test) means the program will be watered down. There's something to this. Children whose IQs put them in the top tenth of 1% of the population have very different needs than those whose IQs put them in the top 5-10%.
But this leaves the question: How should Springfield structure its program? I'm guessing that one of the reasons so many students are identified as gifted is that the district worries a higher cut-off will mean fewer kids from minority backgrounds or lower socioeconomic levels will attend Iles. I think they worry needlessly -- gifted kids come in all colors. But if some parents are responding at lower rates than other parents, the wide net concept isn't working as well as it should.
My preference would be to set a cut-off for the gifted designation in Springfield at exactly the level that the Iles school can accommodate. Then children who test above that level should be assigned automatically to Iles. No opting in. No lottery. (Parents could pull children out if they wished).
This would be an arbitrary cut-off, for sure. If Iles built more classrooms, the definition of gifted would expand. If there was a baby boom in Springfield, the gifted definition would likewise shrink to a smaller percentage. But designating children as gifted is always somewhat arbitrary when it comes to cut-offs. It is less arbitrary, though, when it comes to the individual highly gifted children who need special challenges. Children in the top tenth of 1% are just different than other kids. Of course, that's a hard thing to build a broad policy around! Continuing to use the intelligence test, and having parents opt out, rather than in, maximizes the chances of those highly gifted kids getting the education they need.
I'm curious how other people would like to see Springfield structure its gifted program.
Friday, June 30, 2006
Business Week: Bill Gates Gets "Schooled"
This blog has, over the past year, criticized the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation's Small Schools Initiative for missing the boat when it comes to challenging bright kids. The theory is fine -- kids in small schools feel like they're part of a community. They're less likely to drop out.
Unfortunately, when the Gates Foundation has taken on troubled schools and split them into 3-4 small schools, too often they have not concentrated children by ability or interest (say, a selective math/science school). Sometimes, the schools have been downright hostile to the idea of ability-grouping, choosing to "detrack." But gifted kids learn best when they're challenged to the extent of their abilities in an environment with their intellectual peers. Because the gifted children from the previous big schools are scattered around these new Gates small schools, there are too few gifted kids in each individual school to justify programs that meet their needs. So, their needs aren't met.
Now some other publications are picking up on this. Business Week ran a cover story in its June 26 issue called "Bill Gates Gets Schooled." The opening anecdote describes one Manual High School in Denver. A low-income school with low test scores, Manual was a testing ground for the Gates's ideas. People working with the Foundation split the 1,100 student population into three small schools. But these new schools had no particular theme and became indistinguishable. The new principals had no experience managing schools. Even worse, notes Business Week, "Because the schools were so small, they couldn't offer as many electives as before. French was eliminated, leaving only Spanish for many students who already spoke it. Advanced Placement courses were reduced. Sports teams struggled just to field squads. When the famed choir was limited to one school, the popular director left, and that program withered, along with band and theater."
Fortunately for Manual's students, Denver laws allow kids to transfer to other schools if there's room, so most of Manual's best students managed to escape this downward spiral. But of course, that just accelerated the trend. With just 580 students enrolled for this fall, Business Week says, Denver is shutting the school.
Lest anyone think Manual was just a particularly rough test case, Business Week visited 22 Gates-funded schools around the country. Notes the magazine, "they deserve no better than a C when it comes to improving academic performance." Gates schools show only slightly improved reading achievement, and worse results in math. Kids do graduate at higher rates. But if they know less when they graduate, it's hard to see how that was an improvement.
Business Week notes that some schools have turned out quite well. Mott Haven Village Preparatory School in the South Bronx, for instance, has doubled its graduation rate, and, more importantly, posts Regents pass rates of 96% for math and 98% for English ("Regents exams" are the tough exams that show New York students have mastered the high school curriculum -- about half of state high school students pass the exams each year). Of course, it's not clear that being small is what pushed Mott Haven's success. The school has an excellent principal. Gates money pays for SAT tutoring which, when you think about it, often winds up being advanced, accelerated, one-on-one work.
But another school profiled, High Tech High in San Diego, shows the philosophical problems with some of the Gates Foundation's work. High Tech High graduates 99% of its students, with most being college-ready. High Tech High also has an amazingly charismatic principal, Larry Rosenstock. He attempted to work with a network of other schools to recreate his success. But it hasn't gone smoothly.
"One point of contention has been Rosenstock's belief that dividing students into honors and non-honors classes lowers expectations for ordinary students and undercuts the benefits he sees when teens learn as a team," says Business Week.
What Rosenstock -- and the Gates Foundation -- don't seem to understand is that only in the presence of absolutely top-notch teachers and principals (like Rosenstock) can un-tracked schools have a chance of succeeding. Most teachers aren't so adept at figuring out every child's needs and meeting them. It would be great if all teachers were Teacher-of-the-Year quality (the kind Rosenstock can lure with the $17 million his school received from Gates) and capable of meeting gifted kids' needs in the regular classroom. Even with the addition of Warren Buffett's money to the Gates pot, I don't see that happening on a national level any time soon. Untracked schools have a better chance of winding up like Manual in Denver instead. It becomes a great race to the middle -- the lower middle. Only 16% of students at Gates schools make the grade in math, Business Week, says, compared with 27% of students at traditional schools in the same districts. In other words, for all the Gates Foundation's money, students in the schools it funds have often wound up slightly worse off.
I have hope that this strange love of detracking is just a result of the ideology of the people the Gates Foundation has hired to manage its education programs. Foundations have a tendency to attract people with utopian do-gooder ideas that sometimes crowd out a realist commitment to results. But Bill Gates was a very gifted little boy. Now that he is stepping down from Microsoft to devote himself full-time to the Foundation, he may demand more accountability and evidence of results for his investments -- particularly among the brightest kids at his schools.
At least I hope so. It's a shame to squander the minds of gifted kids in low-income schools just to pursue a certain ideology.
This blog has, over the past year, criticized the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation's Small Schools Initiative for missing the boat when it comes to challenging bright kids. The theory is fine -- kids in small schools feel like they're part of a community. They're less likely to drop out.
Unfortunately, when the Gates Foundation has taken on troubled schools and split them into 3-4 small schools, too often they have not concentrated children by ability or interest (say, a selective math/science school). Sometimes, the schools have been downright hostile to the idea of ability-grouping, choosing to "detrack." But gifted kids learn best when they're challenged to the extent of their abilities in an environment with their intellectual peers. Because the gifted children from the previous big schools are scattered around these new Gates small schools, there are too few gifted kids in each individual school to justify programs that meet their needs. So, their needs aren't met.
Now some other publications are picking up on this. Business Week ran a cover story in its June 26 issue called "Bill Gates Gets Schooled." The opening anecdote describes one Manual High School in Denver. A low-income school with low test scores, Manual was a testing ground for the Gates's ideas. People working with the Foundation split the 1,100 student population into three small schools. But these new schools had no particular theme and became indistinguishable. The new principals had no experience managing schools. Even worse, notes Business Week, "Because the schools were so small, they couldn't offer as many electives as before. French was eliminated, leaving only Spanish for many students who already spoke it. Advanced Placement courses were reduced. Sports teams struggled just to field squads. When the famed choir was limited to one school, the popular director left, and that program withered, along with band and theater."
Fortunately for Manual's students, Denver laws allow kids to transfer to other schools if there's room, so most of Manual's best students managed to escape this downward spiral. But of course, that just accelerated the trend. With just 580 students enrolled for this fall, Business Week says, Denver is shutting the school.
Lest anyone think Manual was just a particularly rough test case, Business Week visited 22 Gates-funded schools around the country. Notes the magazine, "they deserve no better than a C when it comes to improving academic performance." Gates schools show only slightly improved reading achievement, and worse results in math. Kids do graduate at higher rates. But if they know less when they graduate, it's hard to see how that was an improvement.
Business Week notes that some schools have turned out quite well. Mott Haven Village Preparatory School in the South Bronx, for instance, has doubled its graduation rate, and, more importantly, posts Regents pass rates of 96% for math and 98% for English ("Regents exams" are the tough exams that show New York students have mastered the high school curriculum -- about half of state high school students pass the exams each year). Of course, it's not clear that being small is what pushed Mott Haven's success. The school has an excellent principal. Gates money pays for SAT tutoring which, when you think about it, often winds up being advanced, accelerated, one-on-one work.
But another school profiled, High Tech High in San Diego, shows the philosophical problems with some of the Gates Foundation's work. High Tech High graduates 99% of its students, with most being college-ready. High Tech High also has an amazingly charismatic principal, Larry Rosenstock. He attempted to work with a network of other schools to recreate his success. But it hasn't gone smoothly.
"One point of contention has been Rosenstock's belief that dividing students into honors and non-honors classes lowers expectations for ordinary students and undercuts the benefits he sees when teens learn as a team," says Business Week.
What Rosenstock -- and the Gates Foundation -- don't seem to understand is that only in the presence of absolutely top-notch teachers and principals (like Rosenstock) can un-tracked schools have a chance of succeeding. Most teachers aren't so adept at figuring out every child's needs and meeting them. It would be great if all teachers were Teacher-of-the-Year quality (the kind Rosenstock can lure with the $17 million his school received from Gates) and capable of meeting gifted kids' needs in the regular classroom. Even with the addition of Warren Buffett's money to the Gates pot, I don't see that happening on a national level any time soon. Untracked schools have a better chance of winding up like Manual in Denver instead. It becomes a great race to the middle -- the lower middle. Only 16% of students at Gates schools make the grade in math, Business Week, says, compared with 27% of students at traditional schools in the same districts. In other words, for all the Gates Foundation's money, students in the schools it funds have often wound up slightly worse off.
I have hope that this strange love of detracking is just a result of the ideology of the people the Gates Foundation has hired to manage its education programs. Foundations have a tendency to attract people with utopian do-gooder ideas that sometimes crowd out a realist commitment to results. But Bill Gates was a very gifted little boy. Now that he is stepping down from Microsoft to devote himself full-time to the Foundation, he may demand more accountability and evidence of results for his investments -- particularly among the brightest kids at his schools.
At least I hope so. It's a shame to squander the minds of gifted kids in low-income schools just to pursue a certain ideology.
Tuesday, June 27, 2006
New Jersey's Governor's School: Update from Laura Overdeck
Following up on yesterday's post... New Jersey's Governor's School, the prestigious, free summer program for gifted high school students, had been canceled due to budget cuts. Thanks to private donations, the programs will run as planned this summer.
On the webpage for the New Jersey Governor's School of Science (to be held at Drew University), the school specifically thanks John and Laura Overdeck for their generous contributions, which allowed the school to stay open. Mrs. Overdeck graduated from Princeton a few years before I did, so I contacted her through the school's alumni directory.
First, she told me she's reading Genius Denied!
Second, it turns out that she was a Governor's Scholar in Science in 1986, the program's third year. "It was an amazing, life-altering experience: it's a big reason I went on to major in astrophysics at Princeton," she told me. "I also made lifelong friends, one of whom was in my wedding a few years ago."
When Corzine announced the budget cut, NJGSS notified alumni, including Overdeck. "My husband John and I are wholehearted advocates of gifted education, self-pacing, accelerated curriculum, and programs that recognize and nurture young talent (he was an early attendee of Johns Hopkins' CTY-SET)," she says. "So after some discussion, we decided to offer to fund the Governor's School in Science for this summer." Their $200,000 donation would pretty much cover the program's costs.
But, amazingly, when Overdeck offered the state $200,000 to keep the program running, the state rejected it! She was told the program simply had to shut down. "This upset me enough that I notified the Newark Star-Ledger. Others had complained as well, and it hit the front page that week."
Long story short, NJ decided to accept the $200,000 and also recruited former state first lady Ruthi Byrne to raise the $1.9 million necessary to keep all six schools open this summer.
From her interactions with Corzine and others, Overdeck says she thinks state leaders believe NJ Governor's School should continue as a tuition-based program. The thinking is that some families can afford to pay, so why not ask them to contribute? But those families already have other options, such as summer programs at Harvard and other universities. What makes NJ Governor's School unique is that it doesn't charge tuition. Kids who can't afford expensive summer programs are as welcome as those who can. No need to apply for scholarships or financial aid. No one decides not to apply because of sticker shock. Says Overdeck, "John and I strongly believe it should remain free for all attendees. It's an honor to be selected, and tuition-free ensures that talented kids of all income groups can go."
As I said yesterday, I'm thrilled that NJ's gifted high school students still have this option, thanks to gifts from people like the Overdecks. Of course, I can't help thinking of the parallels. Can you imagine if Corzine had announced that there was no more funding for bilingual education, and that if people thought it was important, they could step up to the plate and raise the money themselves? Various state and federal laws mean he can't do that. But no one requires states to put their money where there mouths are when it comes to meeting the needs of gifted kids.
Following up on yesterday's post... New Jersey's Governor's School, the prestigious, free summer program for gifted high school students, had been canceled due to budget cuts. Thanks to private donations, the programs will run as planned this summer.
On the webpage for the New Jersey Governor's School of Science (to be held at Drew University), the school specifically thanks John and Laura Overdeck for their generous contributions, which allowed the school to stay open. Mrs. Overdeck graduated from Princeton a few years before I did, so I contacted her through the school's alumni directory.
First, she told me she's reading Genius Denied!
Second, it turns out that she was a Governor's Scholar in Science in 1986, the program's third year. "It was an amazing, life-altering experience: it's a big reason I went on to major in astrophysics at Princeton," she told me. "I also made lifelong friends, one of whom was in my wedding a few years ago."
When Corzine announced the budget cut, NJGSS notified alumni, including Overdeck. "My husband John and I are wholehearted advocates of gifted education, self-pacing, accelerated curriculum, and programs that recognize and nurture young talent (he was an early attendee of Johns Hopkins' CTY-SET)," she says. "So after some discussion, we decided to offer to fund the Governor's School in Science for this summer." Their $200,000 donation would pretty much cover the program's costs.
But, amazingly, when Overdeck offered the state $200,000 to keep the program running, the state rejected it! She was told the program simply had to shut down. "This upset me enough that I notified the Newark Star-Ledger. Others had complained as well, and it hit the front page that week."
Long story short, NJ decided to accept the $200,000 and also recruited former state first lady Ruthi Byrne to raise the $1.9 million necessary to keep all six schools open this summer.
From her interactions with Corzine and others, Overdeck says she thinks state leaders believe NJ Governor's School should continue as a tuition-based program. The thinking is that some families can afford to pay, so why not ask them to contribute? But those families already have other options, such as summer programs at Harvard and other universities. What makes NJ Governor's School unique is that it doesn't charge tuition. Kids who can't afford expensive summer programs are as welcome as those who can. No need to apply for scholarships or financial aid. No one decides not to apply because of sticker shock. Says Overdeck, "John and I strongly believe it should remain free for all attendees. It's an honor to be selected, and tuition-free ensures that talented kids of all income groups can go."
As I said yesterday, I'm thrilled that NJ's gifted high school students still have this option, thanks to gifts from people like the Overdecks. Of course, I can't help thinking of the parallels. Can you imagine if Corzine had announced that there was no more funding for bilingual education, and that if people thought it was important, they could step up to the plate and raise the money themselves? Various state and federal laws mean he can't do that. But no one requires states to put their money where there mouths are when it comes to meeting the needs of gifted kids.
Monday, June 26, 2006
New Jersey's Governor's School survives
A few months ago, I wrote a blog entry about NJ's Governor's School. This program allowed 600 academically advanced high school students to study advanced material for four weeks over the summer at no cost to them. As private summer enrichment programs can run several thousand dollars, Governor's School was a life raft for bright kids without extra income. The program cost $1.92 million, which New Jersey retroactively cut from the 2006 budget. That means that 600 students received acceptance letters for the summer, and were then told to make other plans.
Fortunately, it turns out they don't have to. Thanks to some generous donations from corporations and private individuals, the programs will now run as planned this summer. Meanwhile, alumni and others concerned about gifted education are lobbying the New Jersey legislature and Jon Corzine, the governor, to make sure funding is restored for fiscal year 2007. You can read about some of those efforts here.
I am thrilled that students will have the opportunity to study arts, sciences, engineering, and other great things this summer. But I also want to point out that New Jersey isn't relying on private contributions to make sure that other kids with special needs receive the education they deserve. Hopefully Corzine and the legislature won't get the idea that this is the way things should work in the future.
A few months ago, I wrote a blog entry about NJ's Governor's School. This program allowed 600 academically advanced high school students to study advanced material for four weeks over the summer at no cost to them. As private summer enrichment programs can run several thousand dollars, Governor's School was a life raft for bright kids without extra income. The program cost $1.92 million, which New Jersey retroactively cut from the 2006 budget. That means that 600 students received acceptance letters for the summer, and were then told to make other plans.
Fortunately, it turns out they don't have to. Thanks to some generous donations from corporations and private individuals, the programs will now run as planned this summer. Meanwhile, alumni and others concerned about gifted education are lobbying the New Jersey legislature and Jon Corzine, the governor, to make sure funding is restored for fiscal year 2007. You can read about some of those efforts here.
I am thrilled that students will have the opportunity to study arts, sciences, engineering, and other great things this summer. But I also want to point out that New Jersey isn't relying on private contributions to make sure that other kids with special needs receive the education they deserve. Hopefully Corzine and the legislature won't get the idea that this is the way things should work in the future.
Friday, June 16, 2006
Poetry Out Loud
Here's a fun new contest that readers of this blog might like to know about: the Poetry Out Loud annual poetry slam/bee from the Chicago-based Poetry Foundation. The first national contest was held in April of this year. The winner, Jackson Hille of Ohio, walked away with $20,000 in scholarships.
Here are the details. Once upon a time, kids memorized and recited poems as a way of learning about this literary form. This method of learning fell out of favor for awhile, but now it's back. When you memorize a poem, you get closer to it -- and understand it better -- than you do when you're just parsing verses for meter and reading the footnotes about how others have interpreted the words. Indeed, most poetry was meant to be experienced out loud. Our oldest poems (The Odyssey, for instance) were experienced this way. When we're little, we hear nursery rhymes out loud, and delight in how the words sound together.
So now high school kids are reliving that experience, memorizing poems such as Lewis Carroll's Jabberwocky, or Billy Collins' Forgetfulness and hamming it up on stage as they recite them. About 500 schools participated last year; the Foundation intends to make it truly national this coming school year.
If your kids are bored for the summer, memorizing great poems (and doing some recitation for neighbors) would be a good way to spend the time and get a jump start on participating in this contest. If you really want to give them a challenge, have them memorize a poem in another language! (and use a language dictionary or online resources to figure out roughly what it means). For more information on Poetry Out Loud, check out the Poetry Foundation's website.
Here's a fun new contest that readers of this blog might like to know about: the Poetry Out Loud annual poetry slam/bee from the Chicago-based Poetry Foundation. The first national contest was held in April of this year. The winner, Jackson Hille of Ohio, walked away with $20,000 in scholarships.
Here are the details. Once upon a time, kids memorized and recited poems as a way of learning about this literary form. This method of learning fell out of favor for awhile, but now it's back. When you memorize a poem, you get closer to it -- and understand it better -- than you do when you're just parsing verses for meter and reading the footnotes about how others have interpreted the words. Indeed, most poetry was meant to be experienced out loud. Our oldest poems (The Odyssey, for instance) were experienced this way. When we're little, we hear nursery rhymes out loud, and delight in how the words sound together.
So now high school kids are reliving that experience, memorizing poems such as Lewis Carroll's Jabberwocky, or Billy Collins' Forgetfulness and hamming it up on stage as they recite them. About 500 schools participated last year; the Foundation intends to make it truly national this coming school year.
If your kids are bored for the summer, memorizing great poems (and doing some recitation for neighbors) would be a good way to spend the time and get a jump start on participating in this contest. If you really want to give them a challenge, have them memorize a poem in another language! (and use a language dictionary or online resources to figure out roughly what it means). For more information on Poetry Out Loud, check out the Poetry Foundation's website.
Wednesday, June 14, 2006
Florida Students Get "Majors"
As part of a push to make high school more meaningful for kids, Florida legislators passed a law last week that requires students to declare majors. Students take a variety of core courses, then four electives in their major, and four other electives.
In theory, this is a good idea. Too much of high school focuses nothing on the world beyond it. So I'm inclined to wait and see how it goes. Perhaps schools will start expanding their offerings to include advanced science classes for science majors, specific literature genres (say, 20th century, or women writers, or Latin America) for literary types.
But I worry that, instead, this well-intentioned program will lead to bad results for gifted kids. Many high schools are a bit narrow-minded on what constitutes a career. South Carolina instituted "career clusters" recently to boost student interest. This link leads to some literature about each of the clusters. I'm not sure I could have chosen journalism, for instance -- or that a budding Egyptologist would find much to interest her (unless she could somehow link it to the hospitality industry). Kids who want academic majors would also, under the Florida majors plan, have far less time to take arts electives like orchestra or choir. This will force kids with "multipotentiality" to commit to one interest, or else fund their study on their own after school.
Ideally, schools would have adopted the "majors" approach on their own, and kids would be free to move between schools in a given area. That way, if students were interested in a focused, in-depth study in a career or academic area, they could attend that school. But it's easier to enact policies on a state level, so that's what Florida has chosen to do. We'll see how it turns out.
As part of a push to make high school more meaningful for kids, Florida legislators passed a law last week that requires students to declare majors. Students take a variety of core courses, then four electives in their major, and four other electives.
In theory, this is a good idea. Too much of high school focuses nothing on the world beyond it. So I'm inclined to wait and see how it goes. Perhaps schools will start expanding their offerings to include advanced science classes for science majors, specific literature genres (say, 20th century, or women writers, or Latin America) for literary types.
But I worry that, instead, this well-intentioned program will lead to bad results for gifted kids. Many high schools are a bit narrow-minded on what constitutes a career. South Carolina instituted "career clusters" recently to boost student interest. This link leads to some literature about each of the clusters. I'm not sure I could have chosen journalism, for instance -- or that a budding Egyptologist would find much to interest her (unless she could somehow link it to the hospitality industry). Kids who want academic majors would also, under the Florida majors plan, have far less time to take arts electives like orchestra or choir. This will force kids with "multipotentiality" to commit to one interest, or else fund their study on their own after school.
Ideally, schools would have adopted the "majors" approach on their own, and kids would be free to move between schools in a given area. That way, if students were interested in a focused, in-depth study in a career or academic area, they could attend that school. But it's easier to enact policies on a state level, so that's what Florida has chosen to do. We'll see how it turns out.
Sunday, June 11, 2006
William Huston, the "Brightest Boy"
Today's New York Times has an obituary on William Huston, who was chosen by Thomas Edison as the nation's "brightest boy" in 1929. Edison had bemoaned the lack of interest in math and science among youth (sound familiar?) and sponsored a nationwide scholarship contest to find the brightest young person and give him a full scholarship to college. Girls were not part of this contest; apparently Mr. Edison never considered that the brightest kid in America (if such a thing can be determined) might be female.
Anyway, William Huston won the contest and a scholarship to MIT. He died May 25 in Arizona at age 93. You can read about his life here.
For all the talk of prodigies flaming out, Huston offers a different version of this tale. Tagged at a young age as being the nation's brightest boy, he didn't let that label get to him. He did "rocket science" research for NASA, had a seemingly rewarding family life (a long marriage and six children), and basically didn't berate his children with tales of being the brightest boy (they say he never mentioned it). Given how many people constantly rehash their glory days as, say, high school football players, I found the tale pretty refreshing.
Today's New York Times has an obituary on William Huston, who was chosen by Thomas Edison as the nation's "brightest boy" in 1929. Edison had bemoaned the lack of interest in math and science among youth (sound familiar?) and sponsored a nationwide scholarship contest to find the brightest young person and give him a full scholarship to college. Girls were not part of this contest; apparently Mr. Edison never considered that the brightest kid in America (if such a thing can be determined) might be female.
Anyway, William Huston won the contest and a scholarship to MIT. He died May 25 in Arizona at age 93. You can read about his life here.
For all the talk of prodigies flaming out, Huston offers a different version of this tale. Tagged at a young age as being the nation's brightest boy, he didn't let that label get to him. He did "rocket science" research for NASA, had a seemingly rewarding family life (a long marriage and six children), and basically didn't berate his children with tales of being the brightest boy (they say he never mentioned it). Given how many people constantly rehash their glory days as, say, high school football players, I found the tale pretty refreshing.
Wednesday, June 07, 2006
The Decline of the Chemistry Set
Quick quiz: What do Intel co-founder Gordon Moore, internet guru Vint Cerf, and Hewlett-Packard co-founder David Packard have in common? Besides their later tech accomplishments, all spent their childhoods blowing things up with chemistry sets.
And unfortunately, they may be the last generation able to do so. "There's no question that stinks and bangs and crystals and colors are what drew kids -- particularly boys-- to science," Nobel Prize winner Roald Hoffmann told Wired magazine recently. "Now the potential for stinks and bangs has been legislated out."
Yep, chemistry sets are fun stuff for bright kids who want to do more real science than the ball-dropping "experiments" in school allow. But good luck finding a decent one these days.
According to Steve Silberman's recent story in Wired on the topic, the crackdown began after Timothy McVeigh used commonly available chemicals to construct the bomb that tore through Oklahoma City in 1995. General terror worries after September 11 prompted more concern. Then add the crystal meth epidemic to the mix. Thirty states have passed laws in recent years restricting sales of chemicals and equipment that can be used to make that drug. According to Wired, in Texas, you have to register Erlenmeyer flasks with the state's Department of Public Safety. The rise of the internet means enterprising kids can now concoct explosions straightaway, without having to tinker with the set for a while, first. And did I mention how litigious people have become? Imagine the lawsuits a real chemistry set could inspire.
But all this means that the old Porter Chemical Company Chemcraft labs-in-a-box can no longer be sold. That set had enough equipment to perform 800 experiments. The new Mr. Wizard Science Set, by contrast, comes with only five chemicals, including laundry starch. Ho hum.
The only "real" set still available, according to Wired, is the Thames & Kosmos C3000, which retails for $200. But even this top-of-the-line set comes with a list of chemicals you must purchase elsewhere in order to actually do certain experiments. Ted McGuire, the company's head, told Wired that "A lot of retailers are scared to carry a real chemistry set now because of liability concerns... The stuff under your kitchen sink is far more dangerous than the things in our kits, but put the word chemistry on something and people become terrified."
That's too bad because, in case anyone hasn't noticed, America is cranking out fewer scientists than we once did. The kind of science practiced in a lot of classrooms looks nothing like the real thing, where you have to come up with questions and find answers that aren't in the back of the book. Chemistry sets help you do that. Too many inquisitive kids these days, unfortunately, are going to have to settle for a sanitized version of the subject.
Quick quiz: What do Intel co-founder Gordon Moore, internet guru Vint Cerf, and Hewlett-Packard co-founder David Packard have in common? Besides their later tech accomplishments, all spent their childhoods blowing things up with chemistry sets.
And unfortunately, they may be the last generation able to do so. "There's no question that stinks and bangs and crystals and colors are what drew kids -- particularly boys-- to science," Nobel Prize winner Roald Hoffmann told Wired magazine recently. "Now the potential for stinks and bangs has been legislated out."
Yep, chemistry sets are fun stuff for bright kids who want to do more real science than the ball-dropping "experiments" in school allow. But good luck finding a decent one these days.
According to Steve Silberman's recent story in Wired on the topic, the crackdown began after Timothy McVeigh used commonly available chemicals to construct the bomb that tore through Oklahoma City in 1995. General terror worries after September 11 prompted more concern. Then add the crystal meth epidemic to the mix. Thirty states have passed laws in recent years restricting sales of chemicals and equipment that can be used to make that drug. According to Wired, in Texas, you have to register Erlenmeyer flasks with the state's Department of Public Safety. The rise of the internet means enterprising kids can now concoct explosions straightaway, without having to tinker with the set for a while, first. And did I mention how litigious people have become? Imagine the lawsuits a real chemistry set could inspire.
But all this means that the old Porter Chemical Company Chemcraft labs-in-a-box can no longer be sold. That set had enough equipment to perform 800 experiments. The new Mr. Wizard Science Set, by contrast, comes with only five chemicals, including laundry starch. Ho hum.
The only "real" set still available, according to Wired, is the Thames & Kosmos C3000, which retails for $200. But even this top-of-the-line set comes with a list of chemicals you must purchase elsewhere in order to actually do certain experiments. Ted McGuire, the company's head, told Wired that "A lot of retailers are scared to carry a real chemistry set now because of liability concerns... The stuff under your kitchen sink is far more dangerous than the things in our kits, but put the word chemistry on something and people become terrified."
That's too bad because, in case anyone hasn't noticed, America is cranking out fewer scientists than we once did. The kind of science practiced in a lot of classrooms looks nothing like the real thing, where you have to come up with questions and find answers that aren't in the back of the book. Chemistry sets help you do that. Too many inquisitive kids these days, unfortunately, are going to have to settle for a sanitized version of the subject.
Monday, June 05, 2006
The Condition of Education
The U.S. Department of Education released its annual Condition of Education report recently. This phone book-size list of statistics has a lot of fascinating information (a list of indicators is available here), but two things in particular touch on subjects we've discussed on this blog.
First, the "boy troubles" are for real. Women now comprise 59% of all graduate students, including 50% of professional degree students (ie, law, medicine, business). While the parity is nice, it's come about partly because of an 11% drop in men seeking professional degrees. Women continue to earn the vast majority of undergraduate degrees. The findings are so striking that that's the statistic the Associated Press chose to highlight in its article on the Condition of Education report.
Second, homeschooling is rising, and it's becoming an interesting blend of working at the kitchen table and other things. Over two percent of all US students are now homeschooled according to this indicator. While the majority of homeschoolers (82%) received all their instruction at home, some 12% of homeschoolers attended school for up to 9 hours a week, and 6% were enrolled between 9-25 hours.
These are positive statistics, because they show that at least 18% of schools are willing to show some flexibility on homeschooling. Most districts maintain that you're either all in or all out, and some homeschooling families want nothing to do with their local schools, for religious or ideological reasons. But many parents of gifted kids homeschool because they don't see any other options for getting their kids the challenge they need. Many of these parents would like to have their children take music, art or gym classes with other students, or specialized subjects (for instance, Mandarin) that the parents themselves might not be able to teach. That 18% of schools are willing to consider such options is a start. By the time a third say it's OK, we'll reach critical mass-- and see a lot more a la carte education. More flexibility is always a good thing for kids who don't fit inside the educational box.
The U.S. Department of Education released its annual Condition of Education report recently. This phone book-size list of statistics has a lot of fascinating information (a list of indicators is available here), but two things in particular touch on subjects we've discussed on this blog.
First, the "boy troubles" are for real. Women now comprise 59% of all graduate students, including 50% of professional degree students (ie, law, medicine, business). While the parity is nice, it's come about partly because of an 11% drop in men seeking professional degrees. Women continue to earn the vast majority of undergraduate degrees. The findings are so striking that that's the statistic the Associated Press chose to highlight in its article on the Condition of Education report.
Second, homeschooling is rising, and it's becoming an interesting blend of working at the kitchen table and other things. Over two percent of all US students are now homeschooled according to this indicator. While the majority of homeschoolers (82%) received all their instruction at home, some 12% of homeschoolers attended school for up to 9 hours a week, and 6% were enrolled between 9-25 hours.
These are positive statistics, because they show that at least 18% of schools are willing to show some flexibility on homeschooling. Most districts maintain that you're either all in or all out, and some homeschooling families want nothing to do with their local schools, for religious or ideological reasons. But many parents of gifted kids homeschool because they don't see any other options for getting their kids the challenge they need. Many of these parents would like to have their children take music, art or gym classes with other students, or specialized subjects (for instance, Mandarin) that the parents themselves might not be able to teach. That 18% of schools are willing to consider such options is a start. By the time a third say it's OK, we'll reach critical mass-- and see a lot more a la carte education. More flexibility is always a good thing for kids who don't fit inside the educational box.
Wednesday, May 31, 2006
Individual tracking comes to NCLB
On this blog, I've complained that No Child Left Behind testing doesn't track progress for gifted kids. For starters, NCLB compares groups of students over time -- say, African American fourth graders in 2004 vs. African American fourth graders in 2005. Since these aren't the same kids, the test results can show broad changes in a school, but don't show whether individual kids are learning. Second, the use of grade level tests means that children who score at the 99th percentile for their grade don't register a change one way or the other -- so you don't know if they're in a holding pattern or growing.
At least NCLB is now addressing the first problem. The federal Department of Education recently chose two states, North Carolina and Tennessee, to participate in a pilot program that tracks individual student progress. A kid in fourth grade in 2006 will be compared against his own test scores from 2005. If he doesn't show adequate yearly progress, the school can be held accountable.
If the pilot program produces usable data, then the program could spread to other states. That's a start. Then we need NCLB to ask schools to use above grade-level tests for gifted kids. A fourth grader who scores at the 75th percentile on a 7th grade test, and then at the 88th percentile on an 8th grade test a year later, is making progress. We don't know if that's true if she just takes the fourth grade, then fifth grade test.
On this blog, I've complained that No Child Left Behind testing doesn't track progress for gifted kids. For starters, NCLB compares groups of students over time -- say, African American fourth graders in 2004 vs. African American fourth graders in 2005. Since these aren't the same kids, the test results can show broad changes in a school, but don't show whether individual kids are learning. Second, the use of grade level tests means that children who score at the 99th percentile for their grade don't register a change one way or the other -- so you don't know if they're in a holding pattern or growing.
At least NCLB is now addressing the first problem. The federal Department of Education recently chose two states, North Carolina and Tennessee, to participate in a pilot program that tracks individual student progress. A kid in fourth grade in 2006 will be compared against his own test scores from 2005. If he doesn't show adequate yearly progress, the school can be held accountable.
If the pilot program produces usable data, then the program could spread to other states. That's a start. Then we need NCLB to ask schools to use above grade-level tests for gifted kids. A fourth grader who scores at the 75th percentile on a 7th grade test, and then at the 88th percentile on an 8th grade test a year later, is making progress. We don't know if that's true if she just takes the fourth grade, then fifth grade test.
Monday, May 29, 2006
Indiana Academy graduation, 2006
I spent this Saturday at the Indiana Academy for Science, Mathematics and the Humanities in Muncie, Indiana. The school flattered me greatly by asking me to give the commencement address. So I did, and had a great time doing it. I was also thrilled to see that there were about 140 kids graduating. When I graduated in 1997, fewer than 100 of us walked across the Emens Auditorium stage. It's great that this public, residential school for gifted kids is growing. May it continue to do so!
You can read my speech at my website.
I am happy to report that the graduates did not throw rotten eggs at me. In fact, some seemed to like the speech :)
I spent this Saturday at the Indiana Academy for Science, Mathematics and the Humanities in Muncie, Indiana. The school flattered me greatly by asking me to give the commencement address. So I did, and had a great time doing it. I was also thrilled to see that there were about 140 kids graduating. When I graduated in 1997, fewer than 100 of us walked across the Emens Auditorium stage. It's great that this public, residential school for gifted kids is growing. May it continue to do so!
You can read my speech at my website.
I am happy to report that the graduates did not throw rotten eggs at me. In fact, some seemed to like the speech :)
Friday, May 26, 2006
Boy Troubles
I was excited to learn yesterday that Richard Whitmire, an editorial writer at USA Today (and my former colleague), had just landed a six-figure book contract to expand on his recent New Republic article called “Boys and Books.” In that essay, Whitmire called attention to the declining academic performance of boys. He lists reasons for their sliding college enrollment rates. (Unfortunately, the New Republic website is subscription only)
Schools, Whitmire says, not only don’t shortchange girls, they favor them. That’s not intentional – it’s just that the standard college curriculum and today’s workplaces require a lot of verbal and reading skills. Boys, for whatever reason, on average, are slower to learn these skills as children. Then there’s the social aspect. While middle- and upper-class fathers read at night after work, in many blue-collar type families, reading is a “sissy” thing (as Whitmire puts it). Fathers do a lot less of it. Then the boys go to school and all day long do something they think isn’t very important – and so they disengage.
I have mixed feelings about this thesis. Whitmire has some interesting excuses for boys’ failures in school. Take this one: “Basing grades on turning in homework on time guarantees lower grades for boys. Studies consistently show boys have more trouble than girls turning in homework on time. Some educators and parents explain this by saying that many boys simply forget or decline to turn in completed homework. Here's the boy-thinking: If I answered the homework question to my satisfaction, the task is done. Why turn it in?” Yet even in very male worlds like banking and consulting, you get no credit for solving a problem until you share the answers. Those are systems set up by men who are probably a lot more egocentric than the average boy. I’d buy the forgetfulness thesis first. Maybe boys will be boys when it comes to having their growing brains leap around frenetically.
On the other hand, I would agree that many classrooms are more girl-friendly than boy-friendly. I came across this fascinating list of classroom practices that hurt boys. Culprits range from distracting, frilly decorations to journaling to the lack of male teachers in many schools. Sitting still through boring classes is hard for girls and boys, but boys can be more rambunctious about it (and are labeled as ADD more often). Competition drills get frowned upon, and class discussions reign.
Of course, you don’t have to be male to dislike class discussions on people’s feelings. I always hated them because, well, the teacher knows things the other children in the class don’t. There’s limited info to be gained from listening to your classmates blather before they’ve had time to study the material. A recent Simpsons episode made fun of these stereotypes by having Springfield Elementary split into girls and boys schools. The girls talked about their feelings about math but, much to Lisa’s chagrin, never did any of it. So she dressed up as a boy to study their math, only to learn the boys found it fun to beat each other up constantly. They bounced off the walls.
As the show suggests, I don’t think splitting up boys and girls is the answer. Then people become too inclined to give credence to gender stereotypes. As Whitmire points out, the answer is to look at schools that overcome the gender gap. These schools tend to have high expectations for everyone and work with kids to find what works for each of them. That’s not a terribly snazzy solution to this latest educational crisis but, on the other hand, you do get results.
I was excited to learn yesterday that Richard Whitmire, an editorial writer at USA Today (and my former colleague), had just landed a six-figure book contract to expand on his recent New Republic article called “Boys and Books.” In that essay, Whitmire called attention to the declining academic performance of boys. He lists reasons for their sliding college enrollment rates. (Unfortunately, the New Republic website is subscription only)
Schools, Whitmire says, not only don’t shortchange girls, they favor them. That’s not intentional – it’s just that the standard college curriculum and today’s workplaces require a lot of verbal and reading skills. Boys, for whatever reason, on average, are slower to learn these skills as children. Then there’s the social aspect. While middle- and upper-class fathers read at night after work, in many blue-collar type families, reading is a “sissy” thing (as Whitmire puts it). Fathers do a lot less of it. Then the boys go to school and all day long do something they think isn’t very important – and so they disengage.
I have mixed feelings about this thesis. Whitmire has some interesting excuses for boys’ failures in school. Take this one: “Basing grades on turning in homework on time guarantees lower grades for boys. Studies consistently show boys have more trouble than girls turning in homework on time. Some educators and parents explain this by saying that many boys simply forget or decline to turn in completed homework. Here's the boy-thinking: If I answered the homework question to my satisfaction, the task is done. Why turn it in?” Yet even in very male worlds like banking and consulting, you get no credit for solving a problem until you share the answers. Those are systems set up by men who are probably a lot more egocentric than the average boy. I’d buy the forgetfulness thesis first. Maybe boys will be boys when it comes to having their growing brains leap around frenetically.
On the other hand, I would agree that many classrooms are more girl-friendly than boy-friendly. I came across this fascinating list of classroom practices that hurt boys. Culprits range from distracting, frilly decorations to journaling to the lack of male teachers in many schools. Sitting still through boring classes is hard for girls and boys, but boys can be more rambunctious about it (and are labeled as ADD more often). Competition drills get frowned upon, and class discussions reign.
Of course, you don’t have to be male to dislike class discussions on people’s feelings. I always hated them because, well, the teacher knows things the other children in the class don’t. There’s limited info to be gained from listening to your classmates blather before they’ve had time to study the material. A recent Simpsons episode made fun of these stereotypes by having Springfield Elementary split into girls and boys schools. The girls talked about their feelings about math but, much to Lisa’s chagrin, never did any of it. So she dressed up as a boy to study their math, only to learn the boys found it fun to beat each other up constantly. They bounced off the walls.
As the show suggests, I don’t think splitting up boys and girls is the answer. Then people become too inclined to give credence to gender stereotypes. As Whitmire points out, the answer is to look at schools that overcome the gender gap. These schools tend to have high expectations for everyone and work with kids to find what works for each of them. That’s not a terribly snazzy solution to this latest educational crisis but, on the other hand, you do get results.
Wednesday, May 24, 2006
Miss America vs. the Spelling Bees
A few weeks ago, I complained on this blog that spelling bees gave a false impression of what intelligence is. That may be true, but on the other hand, they're getting some amazing attention of late. USA Today has an interesting piece today pointing out that, this year, while ABC dropped the Miss America pageant, it is broadcasting the finals of the Scripps National Spelling Bee in prime time. Clearly, something has happened when a major network decrees that letter-slinging 12-year-olds make better TV than swimsuit-clad co-eds.
I have a theory on this. The Miss America pageant has turned viewers off these past few years by becoming horribly confused. It's not really a "beauty pageant" anymore, it's a "scholarship contest." So the contestants wind up being pretty, but not too pretty, talented, but not too talented (they can't be professional performers), and they have to feign interest in the most politically correct causes imaginable. The girls are smart, but they're not judged on their academic prowess. Who wants to watch that?
On the other hand, the Scripps National Spelling Bee has no such confusion. Candidates win by spelling words correctly. Anyone can figure that out. I compare it to the Miss USA pageant, which is pretty much all about looks. Miss USA has seen its TV ratings rise of late, and so has the spelling bee. Are you all tuning in to the spell-down finals on June 1?
A few weeks ago, I complained on this blog that spelling bees gave a false impression of what intelligence is. That may be true, but on the other hand, they're getting some amazing attention of late. USA Today has an interesting piece today pointing out that, this year, while ABC dropped the Miss America pageant, it is broadcasting the finals of the Scripps National Spelling Bee in prime time. Clearly, something has happened when a major network decrees that letter-slinging 12-year-olds make better TV than swimsuit-clad co-eds.
I have a theory on this. The Miss America pageant has turned viewers off these past few years by becoming horribly confused. It's not really a "beauty pageant" anymore, it's a "scholarship contest." So the contestants wind up being pretty, but not too pretty, talented, but not too talented (they can't be professional performers), and they have to feign interest in the most politically correct causes imaginable. The girls are smart, but they're not judged on their academic prowess. Who wants to watch that?
On the other hand, the Scripps National Spelling Bee has no such confusion. Candidates win by spelling words correctly. Anyone can figure that out. I compare it to the Miss USA pageant, which is pretty much all about looks. Miss USA has seen its TV ratings rise of late, and so has the spelling bee. Are you all tuning in to the spell-down finals on June 1?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
