Back during his time in power, UK Prime Minister Tony Blair had an ambition: to get more middle class families to stay in the UK's state schools. One way to do that, he decided, was to increase programming for gifted students. The result, a national academy for gifted students, was launched in 2002. This program provided summer classes, trained teachers, and otherwise tried to bring the needs of gifted learners into the forefront of education.
Now it appears, according to this article in the Telegraph, that the program's 20 million-pound budget will be redirected mostly to achieving more "social mobility," whatever that means. Any national funding for gifted kids will be directed mostly at those from disadvantaged backgrounds.
Now, I understand that budgets are tight everywhere, and there is nothing wrong with helping students from disadvantaged backgrounds. But it is absolutely ludicrous that this is set in contrast with gifted funding, with the idea being that any gifted funding is taking away money from students who deserve it more. 20 million pounds is a small drop in the UK's education budget. The country could probably find that kind of money by reminding everyone to turn off the lights a bit more frequently, or using cheaper toilet paper.
Instead, this is purely a philosophical stand made by educrats who are obsessed with "equity" to the exclusion of all else, and really hate the idea that some kids are brighter than others. If you can't remove that reality, then you try to at least ignore the bright kids and trust they'll do all right. It's a short-sighted philosophy, but it's incredibly widespread for reasons I don't understand. What is it about going into education that makes people dislike gifted kids?
Friday, January 29, 2010
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Two Intel student prize-winners to be recognized in the State of the Union Address
President Obama will recognize two young scientists as part of his State of the Union address, according to this release from Intel. Li Boynton of Houston, TX and Gabriela Farfan of Madison, WI, who have both participated in Intel's science fairs and contests, will sit with First Lady Michelle Obama during the speech.
For the past few decades, presidents have been highlighting Americans with various triumphs or woes during this annual speech; the exercise is meant to call attention to certain issues. So I'm certainly glad that a big issue he'll be calling attention to is gifted young people doing great things! We should be doing more to treat such young people as rock stars. I look forward to seeing it.
For the past few decades, presidents have been highlighting Americans with various triumphs or woes during this annual speech; the exercise is meant to call attention to certain issues. So I'm certainly glad that a big issue he'll be calling attention to is gifted young people doing great things! We should be doing more to treat such young people as rock stars. I look forward to seeing it.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
An Alternative to AP
A few weeks ago, the New York Times ran a story called "In Suburban Schools, an Alternative to AP." The article chronicled the growing interest in dual-enrollment programs, in which high school students take classes that follow college syllabi (and often earn college credits).
The New York Times billed these courses as two things: a cure for senioritis, and an alternative to the "high-pressure" pace of the AP, and its high-stakes end-of-year tests.
I think the first is definitely true. Once the college admissions process is over for the most selective schools by the second semester, people definitely start to slow down. Rather than take easy classes, dual enrollment lets students try out what they'll be doing during the next four years. Dual-enrollment classes potentially expand the curriculum that is available, and by giving kids a taste of college level work may sharpen their study skills.
But I am not sure that these courses are quite equivalent to the AP. For starters, while the AP classes are designed to get you credit (or passed out of courses) at even the most selective universities, many dual-enrollment programs use local community colleges' courses. That doesn't mean they're not good, but Harvard may not recognize these credits. And second, the end-of-the-year high stakes exam is the main reason I like the Advanced Placement courses. They are completely standardized across the country. A 5 in Boise means the same as a 5 in Tampa and New York City. You won't get a high score just because you are the smartest kid in your school. These are hard tests, there is an absolute standard, and if you don't know the material, you will not do well. If you do, though, you know that score means something.
Much in education is incredibly fuzzy. We have no idea if an A in calculus one place means the same as an A elsewhere. We don't even know that the same material is covered. Many gifted kids earn As for no better reason than that the teacher in a regular school has to aim the material to the middle of the class, which makes the material too easy for someone on the high end of the bell curve. A national, difficult, standardized test removes these temptations.
The New York Times billed these courses as two things: a cure for senioritis, and an alternative to the "high-pressure" pace of the AP, and its high-stakes end-of-year tests.
I think the first is definitely true. Once the college admissions process is over for the most selective schools by the second semester, people definitely start to slow down. Rather than take easy classes, dual enrollment lets students try out what they'll be doing during the next four years. Dual-enrollment classes potentially expand the curriculum that is available, and by giving kids a taste of college level work may sharpen their study skills.
But I am not sure that these courses are quite equivalent to the AP. For starters, while the AP classes are designed to get you credit (or passed out of courses) at even the most selective universities, many dual-enrollment programs use local community colleges' courses. That doesn't mean they're not good, but Harvard may not recognize these credits. And second, the end-of-the-year high stakes exam is the main reason I like the Advanced Placement courses. They are completely standardized across the country. A 5 in Boise means the same as a 5 in Tampa and New York City. You won't get a high score just because you are the smartest kid in your school. These are hard tests, there is an absolute standard, and if you don't know the material, you will not do well. If you do, though, you know that score means something.
Much in education is incredibly fuzzy. We have no idea if an A in calculus one place means the same as an A elsewhere. We don't even know that the same material is covered. Many gifted kids earn As for no better reason than that the teacher in a regular school has to aim the material to the middle of the class, which makes the material too easy for someone on the high end of the bell curve. A national, difficult, standardized test removes these temptations.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
The homeschooling single parent
There's been a bit of a dust-up over at Business Week over their recent cover story, The Permanent Temporary Workforce. The story was written with the intent of casting the rise in the free agent workforce in as negative a light as possible. For some people it is a bad thing -- you're doing the same job as an independent contractor, and so not getting any benefits. But for many of us who consider ourselves more entrepreneurial, it's great not to call any one company boss, and certainly worth the trade-offs (like buying our own health insurance, something I did for a few years).
Anyway, the dust-up is that Business Week later had to run a letter from the lead character in the story, a single mom named Tammy DePew Smith, disagreeing with the whole premise, namely that "You know American workers are in bad shape when a low-paying, no-benefits job is considered a sweet deal." Smith works with LiveOps, a Santa Clara provider of call-center workers. She works from home, basically when she wants to, earning about $15/hour -- not great, but not exactly poverty, either.
So what does this have to do with education? Well, it turns out that Smith is also homeschooling her 7-year-old son. I know a lot of Gifted Exchange readers are homeschooling, and often this involves one parent stepping out of the workforce for a while to function as their children's full-time teacher. But the economy is changing. More of us are working wherever, whenever. While working from home is not a good way to save money on childcare when you have little children (trust me on this one), if an older child can be started on a lesson, the parent can then go do something else. In Smith's case, what she does is go answer customer service phone calls for half an hour or so until he's done. This allows her, as a single parent, to support her children, and homeschool one of them too.
Indeed, Business Week could have written a whole story about that! It could have read, "isn't it great that the economy is now so flexible that a single mom can not only support her kids, she can homeschool, too?" But I guess this was not the company line. Michael Bloomberg, whose Bloomberg company now owns Business Week, has often told graduating classes in his stump commencement speech that "it never hurts to be the first one into the office each morning -- and the last to leave." Well, it hurts if you don't get to homeschool, and you've decided that's what's best for your kids.
I always like to hear stories from homeschooling parents about how you're making it work, particularly if you are combining it with paid work or other commitments.
Anyway, the dust-up is that Business Week later had to run a letter from the lead character in the story, a single mom named Tammy DePew Smith, disagreeing with the whole premise, namely that "You know American workers are in bad shape when a low-paying, no-benefits job is considered a sweet deal." Smith works with LiveOps, a Santa Clara provider of call-center workers. She works from home, basically when she wants to, earning about $15/hour -- not great, but not exactly poverty, either.
So what does this have to do with education? Well, it turns out that Smith is also homeschooling her 7-year-old son. I know a lot of Gifted Exchange readers are homeschooling, and often this involves one parent stepping out of the workforce for a while to function as their children's full-time teacher. But the economy is changing. More of us are working wherever, whenever. While working from home is not a good way to save money on childcare when you have little children (trust me on this one), if an older child can be started on a lesson, the parent can then go do something else. In Smith's case, what she does is go answer customer service phone calls for half an hour or so until he's done. This allows her, as a single parent, to support her children, and homeschool one of them too.
Indeed, Business Week could have written a whole story about that! It could have read, "isn't it great that the economy is now so flexible that a single mom can not only support her kids, she can homeschool, too?" But I guess this was not the company line. Michael Bloomberg, whose Bloomberg company now owns Business Week, has often told graduating classes in his stump commencement speech that "it never hurts to be the first one into the office each morning -- and the last to leave." Well, it hurts if you don't get to homeschool, and you've decided that's what's best for your kids.
I always like to hear stories from homeschooling parents about how you're making it work, particularly if you are combining it with paid work or other commitments.
Monday, January 18, 2010
Ranking the States in Math
Ed Week recently published a "Math Progress" index related to the Quality Counts 2010 report. The index ranks the various states according to 12 metrics. I believe some of these metrics are important-- for instance, the percentage of middle schoolers attending schools where taking algebra in 8th grade is the norm. Others are less important--for instance, the percentage of lower-income students taught math by teachers who have been teaching it for more than 10 years. What with tenure and the like, it is quite possible to teach math badly for 20 years or more, especially in the large urban districts where many lower income students reside, and other studies have shown that after the first few years on the job, teachers don't make vast quality gains. So I'm not sure I would have included this one.
Nonetheless, what I find most interesting about these rankings is how varied the states are. Some are generally good on most of the metrics (Massachusetts and Maryland). Some are generally bad (Mississippi, for instance). But even the top scorers like Massachusetts don't do well on some important metrics, like 8th grade algebra, whereas lower ranking states like California do quite well on this one. Because of this, it is hard to point to one state doing "best practices" that others can emulate. In other words, large scale math reform is not going to involve just pointing to one state and saying "do what they do." It will have to involve picking and choosing from across the country.
Nonetheless, what I find most interesting about these rankings is how varied the states are. Some are generally good on most of the metrics (Massachusetts and Maryland). Some are generally bad (Mississippi, for instance). But even the top scorers like Massachusetts don't do well on some important metrics, like 8th grade algebra, whereas lower ranking states like California do quite well on this one. Because of this, it is hard to point to one state doing "best practices" that others can emulate. In other words, large scale math reform is not going to involve just pointing to one state and saying "do what they do." It will have to involve picking and choosing from across the country.
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
The Intel Semi-Finalists
Intel and the Society for Science released their list of the semi-finalists in this year's Intel Science Talent Search. You can read the list of 300 students here.
While the list of students who have done amazing independent scientific research projects is long, the list of schools they attend is much, much shorter. Scroll down, and you'll see the Texas Academy of Math and Science, the North Carolina School of Science and Math, the Illinois Math and Science Academy, and a few other stand-outs listed again and again.
What's happened is that a few schools have institutional research programs that give kids the time and the mentoring to actually conduct interesting, meaningful experiments. While it is certainly possible to find your own mentor at a university near your home, or even come up with your own experiments you can do at your kitchen table, a research program makes it that much easier for kids with scientific aptitude to test and stretch themselves.
I would love to see more schools putting serious research programs in place as an option for kids who want a project in high school. Hopefully the cash a semi-finalist designation earns will, over time, convince more schools to give it a try.
While the list of students who have done amazing independent scientific research projects is long, the list of schools they attend is much, much shorter. Scroll down, and you'll see the Texas Academy of Math and Science, the North Carolina School of Science and Math, the Illinois Math and Science Academy, and a few other stand-outs listed again and again.
What's happened is that a few schools have institutional research programs that give kids the time and the mentoring to actually conduct interesting, meaningful experiments. While it is certainly possible to find your own mentor at a university near your home, or even come up with your own experiments you can do at your kitchen table, a research program makes it that much easier for kids with scientific aptitude to test and stretch themselves.
I would love to see more schools putting serious research programs in place as an option for kids who want a project in high school. Hopefully the cash a semi-finalist designation earns will, over time, convince more schools to give it a try.
Thursday, January 07, 2010
Our Little Genius
Over the past few years here at Gifted Exchange, we've written a few times about "child prodigy" shows, when TV hosts like Ellen or Oprah bring on kids who do what are billed as amazing things. These often involve memorizing a high volume of information, like which US president did what, or lists of famous quotes.
I'm not sure how it's become a broadly held notion that intelligence in children is defined by the ability to memorize things and do quick recall, but I guess this is what makes for good television. All of these kids are, of course, bright, but children in general like to memorize things like the names of all the Thomas the Tank Engine characters or the names of dinosaurs. It helps them make sense of the world and given that they don't have to stuff their brains with other questions (like "did I remember to pay the mortgage?"), many can do it quite well. If you've got parents who want to promote the kid, then you've got a TV segment, though it may not be showing quite what everyone thinks it does.
It was particularly eerie in one of the Oprah episodes I watched, in which a young girl who could recite famous quotes was asked about her favorite quote from Oprah. She gave the quote, then said at the end "Oprah Winfrey." Since she was speaking to Oprah, this made very little sense to give the name of the speaker. But this is how she had memorized everything (quote, then name of person who said the quote), so she stayed true to form, rather than changing to take account of the current situation (which is probably a better measure of intelligence).
Anyway, this television tendency will now get a new breath of life with the new Fox show, premiering next week, called "Our Little Genius." In it, children pulled from gifted programs will answer increasingly difficult trivia questions to win money. Their parents have the option to have them stop at any given point if they decide that's enough winnings. The show's creator, Mark Burnett, told the New York Times that “I love that we’re shining a light on these academic geniuses... So much light is shined on gymnasts, football players, singers and actors. It’s not often that you get a light shined on academics.”
This is definitely true. However, I wish we would recognize that this is a certain kind of academics. For game shows to work, there has to be a right answer. So you get questions like "Who was the Roman god of war?" for which you can study and cough up the right answer. You don't get more interesting questions like "why might a culture have a god of war?" or "how might it change a culture to move from a pantheon of gods to one god?" which actually test a person's ability to draw on different bits of information and reach a new conclusion. If you had a show in which a 7-year-old discussed those questions, I'd definitely watch it. But since there's no right answer, it would be hard to dole out $500,000 in front of a studio audience. And the ratings would probably stink.
I'm not sure how it's become a broadly held notion that intelligence in children is defined by the ability to memorize things and do quick recall, but I guess this is what makes for good television. All of these kids are, of course, bright, but children in general like to memorize things like the names of all the Thomas the Tank Engine characters or the names of dinosaurs. It helps them make sense of the world and given that they don't have to stuff their brains with other questions (like "did I remember to pay the mortgage?"), many can do it quite well. If you've got parents who want to promote the kid, then you've got a TV segment, though it may not be showing quite what everyone thinks it does.
It was particularly eerie in one of the Oprah episodes I watched, in which a young girl who could recite famous quotes was asked about her favorite quote from Oprah. She gave the quote, then said at the end "Oprah Winfrey." Since she was speaking to Oprah, this made very little sense to give the name of the speaker. But this is how she had memorized everything (quote, then name of person who said the quote), so she stayed true to form, rather than changing to take account of the current situation (which is probably a better measure of intelligence).
Anyway, this television tendency will now get a new breath of life with the new Fox show, premiering next week, called "Our Little Genius." In it, children pulled from gifted programs will answer increasingly difficult trivia questions to win money. Their parents have the option to have them stop at any given point if they decide that's enough winnings. The show's creator, Mark Burnett, told the New York Times that “I love that we’re shining a light on these academic geniuses... So much light is shined on gymnasts, football players, singers and actors. It’s not often that you get a light shined on academics.”
This is definitely true. However, I wish we would recognize that this is a certain kind of academics. For game shows to work, there has to be a right answer. So you get questions like "Who was the Roman god of war?" for which you can study and cough up the right answer. You don't get more interesting questions like "why might a culture have a god of war?" or "how might it change a culture to move from a pantheon of gods to one god?" which actually test a person's ability to draw on different bits of information and reach a new conclusion. If you had a show in which a 7-year-old discussed those questions, I'd definitely watch it. But since there's no right answer, it would be hard to dole out $500,000 in front of a studio audience. And the ratings would probably stink.
Wednesday, January 06, 2010
Teach for America and civic engagement
For the past 20 years, Teach for America has sent new grads from top colleges into troubled schools to teach for 2 years. The idea is that these young, energetic teachers will inspire their charges, and that, in turn, having the experience of teaching will turn these young grads into better citizens.
It's an intriguing idea, but there's now some new evidence that the latter is not necessarily true. According to a new study from Stanford sociologist Doug McAdam (written about here), rates of voting, charitable giving and civic engagement are lower among Teach for America grads (who completed their two years) than among those who were selected to the program but declined the offer.
While there's some controversy about these findings (founder Wendy Kopp disputes them) it does raise the question of why this would be the case. I think the answer has to do with how much we, as a society, like neat narratives. We like stories that make sense. What could make more sense than people having a life-changing experience doing something like the Peace Corps, or Freedom Summer (when college students helped register black Mississippi residents to vote back in the Civil Rights era), AmeriCorps or now Teach for America? Thess life-changing experiences, according to the story line, would then inspire people to a life of service.
But real life seldom fits into neat narratives. As McAdam points out, the Freedom Summer folks (who did stick around in progressive activism) were undertaking something pretty risky and counter-cultural. When 13% of Harvard's graduating class applies for Teach for America, though, it's hard to think of it as a counter-cultural thing that would truly inspire you to do difficult and potentially unpopular things for the rest of your life.
It's also possible that serving in an inner-city school for two years can make people feel like they're "done" -- they've done their work for humanity, and now they don't need to volunteer or give money. Or perhaps people get so burned out doing this difficult work that they no longer care about public policy (why vote for politicians who will just grandstand about education anyway?)
These are tough questions, and I don't know the answer. In general, I think it's not a bad thing to have young, smart people try teaching. One of the few metrics that actually matter in teacher quality is the teachers' own scores on standardized tests. Clearly, the Ivy League grads who fill Teach for America's ranks do well on that metric. So maybe this study was going after the wrong thing. After all, if more than 60% of Teach for America grads are still involved in education, then it's certainly a success on that front.
It's an intriguing idea, but there's now some new evidence that the latter is not necessarily true. According to a new study from Stanford sociologist Doug McAdam (written about here), rates of voting, charitable giving and civic engagement are lower among Teach for America grads (who completed their two years) than among those who were selected to the program but declined the offer.
While there's some controversy about these findings (founder Wendy Kopp disputes them) it does raise the question of why this would be the case. I think the answer has to do with how much we, as a society, like neat narratives. We like stories that make sense. What could make more sense than people having a life-changing experience doing something like the Peace Corps, or Freedom Summer (when college students helped register black Mississippi residents to vote back in the Civil Rights era), AmeriCorps or now Teach for America? Thess life-changing experiences, according to the story line, would then inspire people to a life of service.
But real life seldom fits into neat narratives. As McAdam points out, the Freedom Summer folks (who did stick around in progressive activism) were undertaking something pretty risky and counter-cultural. When 13% of Harvard's graduating class applies for Teach for America, though, it's hard to think of it as a counter-cultural thing that would truly inspire you to do difficult and potentially unpopular things for the rest of your life.
It's also possible that serving in an inner-city school for two years can make people feel like they're "done" -- they've done their work for humanity, and now they don't need to volunteer or give money. Or perhaps people get so burned out doing this difficult work that they no longer care about public policy (why vote for politicians who will just grandstand about education anyway?)
These are tough questions, and I don't know the answer. In general, I think it's not a bad thing to have young, smart people try teaching. One of the few metrics that actually matter in teacher quality is the teachers' own scores on standardized tests. Clearly, the Ivy League grads who fill Teach for America's ranks do well on that metric. So maybe this study was going after the wrong thing. After all, if more than 60% of Teach for America grads are still involved in education, then it's certainly a success on that front.
Friday, December 18, 2009
What are we thankful for?
Gifted Exchange will be taking a holiday break starting next week, and be back in 2010. This past year has been a big one for us. We passed our 4-year anniversary, and have now tallied more than 400 posts! Through the "Facets of Gifted Education" series earlier this year, we got to meet a wide variety of people involved in gifted education, from teachers to publishers to kids.
We've covered a variety of woes in the gifted education world, but as part of the holiday season's focus on joy and gratitude, I'd love to hear from people about things that are going right. If you know a school, a program, an accommodation, etc., that's worked really well, I'd love to hear about it. I want to thank everyone for reading this blog, and hope you have a fantastic holiday season and New Year!
We've covered a variety of woes in the gifted education world, but as part of the holiday season's focus on joy and gratitude, I'd love to hear from people about things that are going right. If you know a school, a program, an accommodation, etc., that's worked really well, I'd love to hear about it. I want to thank everyone for reading this blog, and hope you have a fantastic holiday season and New Year!
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Intentions and results in school reform
Everyone is into school reform these days, and everyone has good intentions. Schools and teachers talk about how they're trying different things; every educational symposium features sessions about their innovations, with sympathetic audiences crediting the speakers for trying to "do something."
And it turns out, according to a very big new study, written about here in Education Week, that all this freelance innovation may not be as effective as following very specific scripts.
Thirteen years ago, researchers from the Consortium for Policy Research in Education set out to study three packaged school reform curricula: Success for All, America's Choice and Accelerated Schools. Success for All features scripted lessons which tell teachers exactly how to teach a concept. Accelerated Schools allows teachers to devise lessons, with guidance toward outcomes. America's Choice is somewhere in the middle. After studying the achievement of thousands of students at hundreds of schools, the researchers found that Success for All outranked the others. While the Accelerated School teachers felt they had far more autonomy in their classroom, this autonomy translated into not being very effective, or at least doing no better than the control schools. The Success for All scripts, on the other hand, raised achievement levels of the average participating student from the 40th to the 50th percentile over 2.5 years.
This is a fascinating result and, if you are a teacher, a wee bit tough to swallow. We think of teaching as a profession, benefiting from a personal, charismatic touch. It's somewhat akin to how we think of medicine. And there's a parallel to the dust-up going on among doctors with the whole evidence-based medicine announcements coming down from various task forces. In this morning's USA Today, for instance (right next to one of my op-eds!) there is a column from Dr. Marc Siegel at NYU complaining about the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, which recently recommended against annual mammograms for women over age 40. Dr. Siegel writes that "Today I use my own checklist based on 20 years in practice." This involves sending women who are over age 40 for mammograms. He is sure that this is the right thing to do (and hence is writing an op-ed complaining about being told not to do it) but the reality is, based on the evidence, it isn't. That's exactly what the task force was "tasked" with figuring out. But he's a professional! He knows what's right based on 20 years in practice! Hence the title, "Task-force thinking doesn't deliver my kind of medicine."
The same thing, apparently, happens in teaching. When you teach for 20 years, you know how to teach, right? Certainly you know better than a scripted curriculum package... except that for the average teacher, that's not what this study seems to be saying. And just as doctors often object to standardization programs (for surgery, procedures, etc.) that try to turn them into robots, I don't think teachers like them either. But it raises the question in both areas: if the results are better (and there's no doubt that doctors following strict procedural guidelines make fewer errors), is it worth the cost? Nobody likes unhappy teachers or doctors. But we like results too.
And it turns out, according to a very big new study, written about here in Education Week, that all this freelance innovation may not be as effective as following very specific scripts.
Thirteen years ago, researchers from the Consortium for Policy Research in Education set out to study three packaged school reform curricula: Success for All, America's Choice and Accelerated Schools. Success for All features scripted lessons which tell teachers exactly how to teach a concept. Accelerated Schools allows teachers to devise lessons, with guidance toward outcomes. America's Choice is somewhere in the middle. After studying the achievement of thousands of students at hundreds of schools, the researchers found that Success for All outranked the others. While the Accelerated School teachers felt they had far more autonomy in their classroom, this autonomy translated into not being very effective, or at least doing no better than the control schools. The Success for All scripts, on the other hand, raised achievement levels of the average participating student from the 40th to the 50th percentile over 2.5 years.
This is a fascinating result and, if you are a teacher, a wee bit tough to swallow. We think of teaching as a profession, benefiting from a personal, charismatic touch. It's somewhat akin to how we think of medicine. And there's a parallel to the dust-up going on among doctors with the whole evidence-based medicine announcements coming down from various task forces. In this morning's USA Today, for instance (right next to one of my op-eds!) there is a column from Dr. Marc Siegel at NYU complaining about the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, which recently recommended against annual mammograms for women over age 40. Dr. Siegel writes that "Today I use my own checklist based on 20 years in practice." This involves sending women who are over age 40 for mammograms. He is sure that this is the right thing to do (and hence is writing an op-ed complaining about being told not to do it) but the reality is, based on the evidence, it isn't. That's exactly what the task force was "tasked" with figuring out. But he's a professional! He knows what's right based on 20 years in practice! Hence the title, "Task-force thinking doesn't deliver my kind of medicine."
The same thing, apparently, happens in teaching. When you teach for 20 years, you know how to teach, right? Certainly you know better than a scripted curriculum package... except that for the average teacher, that's not what this study seems to be saying. And just as doctors often object to standardization programs (for surgery, procedures, etc.) that try to turn them into robots, I don't think teachers like them either. But it raises the question in both areas: if the results are better (and there's no doubt that doctors following strict procedural guidelines make fewer errors), is it worth the cost? Nobody likes unhappy teachers or doctors. But we like results too.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
National Journal: Education Tracking Continues to Stir Debate
As long-time readers of Gifted Exchange know, "ability grouping" or, as I like to call it, "readiness grouping" is a very important part of meeting the needs of gifted students. The narrative of a gifted child being bored in a heterogeneous classroom -- and being asked to serve as an unpaid teaching assistant because of it -- is so common it's a cliche. It's incredibly difficult to teach a classroom full of kids with wildly differing abilities in a way that challenges all of them. Excellent teachers can do it, sometimes. Unfortunately, excellent teachers aren't quite as bountiful as we'd all like.
Nonetheless, ability grouping or, as opponents like to call it, "tracking," remains controversial among people who aren't trying to raise bored gifted kids stuck in heterogeneous classrooms, and so people continue to study the practice. National Journal recently highlighted a new study from Tom Loveless of the Brookings Institution claiming that schools with more ability grouping showed better results than those with less ability grouping.
Some folks agreed with him, and some didn't, but I was particularly interested in a quote by Kevin Welner, a professor of education at the University of Colorado. Per the article, "The research on tracking is as clear as anything in the field of education," Welner said. "It is a destructive practice that has the undeniable effect of lowering expectations and opportunities for students who have already fallen behind." In Welner's estimation, National Journal reports, the body of research documenting the harmful effects of tracking speaks for itself, the debate is over and it's time to move forward.
Since Welner is so against ability grouping, I assumed that his classes at the University of Colorado must be open to all comers of all abilities. But it turns out that the University of Colorado at Boulder's School of Education is very proud of how "ability grouped" it is, in the sense of being very selective to get in. As this profile page notes, GRE scores for doctoral candidates in the School of Education ranked 6th out of 190 schools around the country. I think one needs to take with a grain of salt the idea that young people should be subjected to completely heterogeneous classes when it comes from people who have put themselves in professional environments where everyone has done well on standardized tests.
Nonetheless, ability grouping or, as opponents like to call it, "tracking," remains controversial among people who aren't trying to raise bored gifted kids stuck in heterogeneous classrooms, and so people continue to study the practice. National Journal recently highlighted a new study from Tom Loveless of the Brookings Institution claiming that schools with more ability grouping showed better results than those with less ability grouping.
Some folks agreed with him, and some didn't, but I was particularly interested in a quote by Kevin Welner, a professor of education at the University of Colorado. Per the article, "The research on tracking is as clear as anything in the field of education," Welner said. "It is a destructive practice that has the undeniable effect of lowering expectations and opportunities for students who have already fallen behind." In Welner's estimation, National Journal reports, the body of research documenting the harmful effects of tracking speaks for itself, the debate is over and it's time to move forward.
Since Welner is so against ability grouping, I assumed that his classes at the University of Colorado must be open to all comers of all abilities. But it turns out that the University of Colorado at Boulder's School of Education is very proud of how "ability grouped" it is, in the sense of being very selective to get in. As this profile page notes, GRE scores for doctoral candidates in the School of Education ranked 6th out of 190 schools around the country. I think one needs to take with a grain of salt the idea that young people should be subjected to completely heterogeneous classes when it comes from people who have put themselves in professional environments where everyone has done well on standardized tests.
Friday, December 11, 2009
What to tell kids about Santa
No, not the big question. I'm guessing that many readers of this blog had their 5-year-olds come to them with good arguments about the top land-speed of reindeer, their dense bones which would preclude flight, the exact number of houses in North America--let alone in the rest of the world where, curiously, many cultures have a different conception of a night-time gift giver. Or, if your kid has a strong inclination toward fairness, she noted that while some of her friends got huge gifts from Santa, her stocking inclined mostly toward gum and toothbrushes (I don't think my parents wanted Santa taking credit for the good stuff!).
Since my family was firmly in the gum-and-toothbrushes category, any Santa belief ended quite early. In second grade, my class was supposed to write letters to Santa, which would then be answered. I wrote a letter saying this was a stupid exercise since he didn't exist. The letter I got back said I sounded like a smart little girl. I'm not sure if that was a good thing.
Anyway, the question is what to tell kids to say to other kids about Santa. While gifted kids can figure things out quickly, they're not always that good at social niceties, or see the point of white lies. It's wrong to lie to people, right? So if you've got a little Santa truther, how do talk him through this social navigation, particularly if all his friends at school or church are still at the age where it's fun to believe? (There's a broader take on the Santa issue, from the child development perspective, talked about in this article here). I'd love to hear how you all handled this issue.
Since my family was firmly in the gum-and-toothbrushes category, any Santa belief ended quite early. In second grade, my class was supposed to write letters to Santa, which would then be answered. I wrote a letter saying this was a stupid exercise since he didn't exist. The letter I got back said I sounded like a smart little girl. I'm not sure if that was a good thing.
Anyway, the question is what to tell kids to say to other kids about Santa. While gifted kids can figure things out quickly, they're not always that good at social niceties, or see the point of white lies. It's wrong to lie to people, right? So if you've got a little Santa truther, how do talk him through this social navigation, particularly if all his friends at school or church are still at the age where it's fun to believe? (There's a broader take on the Santa issue, from the child development perspective, talked about in this article here). I'd love to hear how you all handled this issue.
Monday, December 07, 2009
Motivated Kids (and the Joys of Non-Fiction)
It should come as no surprise that one of the key ingredients of a good education is motivated kids. One of the issues that has bedeviled the study of charter and private schools is that often, the kids and families who elect to attend (or even apply for) these schools are just more motivated and oriented toward learning than those who don't. That means that a school billed as more challenging academically, which requires people to apply, will do better than a "regular" school, even if the former takes all comers or, for that matter, isn't any better. Motivation matters. If you knew you had to give a speech in French in four days to a big audience, you'd be a lot more motivated to practice than you probably were in your college French classes!
Some children start school more motivated than others. They come from families that really value learning (a positive focus) or come down hard for bad grades (a more negative focus, but probably effective, too). The question for raising the caliber of American schools, then, is whether you can create motivated kids in situations where families aren't sending the message that school matters.
I think you can. There have been a million articles written on successful-against-the-odds schools (I've probably written several dozen myself, as you can see from the links that follow). The common theme (aside from good principals and teachers, and often high standards) is that the schools have found some "hook" to motivate the kids. The Cristo Rey schools bring children into professional work settings 1-2 days per week where they see what skills might be needed to land high-paying jobs. The police academy magnets in LA interest kids in learning in the context of forensics, intense physical education and so forth. The Network for Teaching Entrepreneurship has kids learning math and writing so they can produce business plans (and make real money -- a real world motivation!)
What all this boils down to is creating conditions where students want to learn something because they are personally interested in the answer. I was reminded of this at the Texas Association for the Gifted and Talented conference, which I attended this past week. Much of the conference was aimed at teachers getting their professional development credits. I attended a session called "The Joys of Non-Fiction," led by Dr. Keith Polette, a professor of English Education at the University of Texas at El Paso. He started with a story of a kid in English class asking the reasonable question "Why did Poe put questions at the end of his story?" Almost every English class features short selections followed by questions, which Polette claimed was dull and not very effective.
So he tried another approach with us, showing us a black and white photo of a Victorian woman with no caption. Who did we think she was? People threw out silly answers. Then he gave us another clue. She did something no woman had done before. What did we think she did? (People threw out more silly answers, which he then made fun of. Humor always helps in teaching...) We pondered who she was, what she had done and why she had done it. And of course, by the time we had spent 5 minutes guessing who she was, we were all quite curious. When he finally gave us a short biography of a woman who turned out to be Bertha von Suttner, the first female winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, most people were genuinely interested in reading it, and in learning about this journalist who published Lay Down Your Arms in 1889. I am pretty sure most people would not have been interested in reading that chunk of text under other circumstances.
In other words, motivation can be created. The question for education reform is how to spread best practices to create motivation more broadly--for as many hours as possible that students are in school.
Some children start school more motivated than others. They come from families that really value learning (a positive focus) or come down hard for bad grades (a more negative focus, but probably effective, too). The question for raising the caliber of American schools, then, is whether you can create motivated kids in situations where families aren't sending the message that school matters.
I think you can. There have been a million articles written on successful-against-the-odds schools (I've probably written several dozen myself, as you can see from the links that follow). The common theme (aside from good principals and teachers, and often high standards) is that the schools have found some "hook" to motivate the kids. The Cristo Rey schools bring children into professional work settings 1-2 days per week where they see what skills might be needed to land high-paying jobs. The police academy magnets in LA interest kids in learning in the context of forensics, intense physical education and so forth. The Network for Teaching Entrepreneurship has kids learning math and writing so they can produce business plans (and make real money -- a real world motivation!)
What all this boils down to is creating conditions where students want to learn something because they are personally interested in the answer. I was reminded of this at the Texas Association for the Gifted and Talented conference, which I attended this past week. Much of the conference was aimed at teachers getting their professional development credits. I attended a session called "The Joys of Non-Fiction," led by Dr. Keith Polette, a professor of English Education at the University of Texas at El Paso. He started with a story of a kid in English class asking the reasonable question "Why did Poe put questions at the end of his story?" Almost every English class features short selections followed by questions, which Polette claimed was dull and not very effective.
So he tried another approach with us, showing us a black and white photo of a Victorian woman with no caption. Who did we think she was? People threw out silly answers. Then he gave us another clue. She did something no woman had done before. What did we think she did? (People threw out more silly answers, which he then made fun of. Humor always helps in teaching...) We pondered who she was, what she had done and why she had done it. And of course, by the time we had spent 5 minutes guessing who she was, we were all quite curious. When he finally gave us a short biography of a woman who turned out to be Bertha von Suttner, the first female winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, most people were genuinely interested in reading it, and in learning about this journalist who published Lay Down Your Arms in 1889. I am pretty sure most people would not have been interested in reading that chunk of text under other circumstances.
In other words, motivation can be created. The question for education reform is how to spread best practices to create motivation more broadly--for as many hours as possible that students are in school.
Friday, December 04, 2009
A different way of doing assessment
I just got back from the Texas Association for the Gifted and Talented's annual conference (where Jan Davidson was the keynote speaker). I'll write more in coming days about various issues that came out of the conference. But one fascinating one, at least for me, was the assessment that the Davidson Academy at the University of Nevada-Reno has developed for choosing its students.
The Davidson Academy is the nation's first public school for profoundly gifted kids. To be eligible, students must have IQ scores above a certain level. However, scores only tell you so much. And so, the folks who run the Davidson Academy have developed a way of gauging how a student actually learns. Here is the Assessment Schedule (taken from a hand-out at Academy Director Colleen Harsin's talk-- the words in parentheses are from the hand-out):
1. Read a short story and respond to four critical thinking questions (done independently on laptops)
2. Academic discussion and direct instruction (About an hour using a PowerPoint presentation to guide the students through the literary elements of the story -- PowerPoint also includes information about how to write a literary analysis essay)
3. Write rough drafts of essays (Given detailed guidelines about how to approach the essay and what is expected)
4. Science questions (Both objective, multiple choice questions and reflective short answer and essay questions)
5. Lunch
6. Math assessment (Not multiple choice-- while students are doing this, the English teachers are writing feedback on the students' rough drafts)
7. Peer editing with each other's rough drafts (Allows students to get different ideas and perspectives from each other, helps students focus on the expectations we have of their writing -- handout that guides the editing process)
8. Work on final drafts of essays (using advice from the teachers and their peers)
9. Outside break
10. Read and respond to a short story (a quick check with a second story to help us look at critical thinking, reading comprehension, and independent writing).
What I like about this assessment is that, for starters, most tests are a complete waste of a day. They are designed to test what you know, and so they are inherently retrospective. But this assessment teaches kids something they, at age 10-12 (or so) have probably not encountered much before--namely, writing analytical essays. And second, the process is not so much about getting the right answer, or writing the perfect essay the first time (which I have never done in my life! I spent 5 hours revising a 900 word essay this week!) but about whether you can learn to incorporate feedback and write a better essay after evaluating your own and others' work.
In much of school, you learn something, cough up what you remember, get a grade and move on. There is little emphasis on revisiting what you've done and learning from any mistakes or seeing what can be done better. But this is precisely how one actually develops talent in a discipline. The nature of intelligence is being able to fit together disparate pieces of information and draw inferences and solve problems. Basic tests don't often measure this well, but I think this assessment does.
The Davidson Academy is the nation's first public school for profoundly gifted kids. To be eligible, students must have IQ scores above a certain level. However, scores only tell you so much. And so, the folks who run the Davidson Academy have developed a way of gauging how a student actually learns. Here is the Assessment Schedule (taken from a hand-out at Academy Director Colleen Harsin's talk-- the words in parentheses are from the hand-out):
1. Read a short story and respond to four critical thinking questions (done independently on laptops)
2. Academic discussion and direct instruction (About an hour using a PowerPoint presentation to guide the students through the literary elements of the story -- PowerPoint also includes information about how to write a literary analysis essay)
3. Write rough drafts of essays (Given detailed guidelines about how to approach the essay and what is expected)
4. Science questions (Both objective, multiple choice questions and reflective short answer and essay questions)
5. Lunch
6. Math assessment (Not multiple choice-- while students are doing this, the English teachers are writing feedback on the students' rough drafts)
7. Peer editing with each other's rough drafts (Allows students to get different ideas and perspectives from each other, helps students focus on the expectations we have of their writing -- handout that guides the editing process)
8. Work on final drafts of essays (using advice from the teachers and their peers)
9. Outside break
10. Read and respond to a short story (a quick check with a second story to help us look at critical thinking, reading comprehension, and independent writing).
What I like about this assessment is that, for starters, most tests are a complete waste of a day. They are designed to test what you know, and so they are inherently retrospective. But this assessment teaches kids something they, at age 10-12 (or so) have probably not encountered much before--namely, writing analytical essays. And second, the process is not so much about getting the right answer, or writing the perfect essay the first time (which I have never done in my life! I spent 5 hours revising a 900 word essay this week!) but about whether you can learn to incorporate feedback and write a better essay after evaluating your own and others' work.
In much of school, you learn something, cough up what you remember, get a grade and move on. There is little emphasis on revisiting what you've done and learning from any mistakes or seeing what can be done better. But this is precisely how one actually develops talent in a discipline. The nature of intelligence is being able to fit together disparate pieces of information and draw inferences and solve problems. Basic tests don't often measure this well, but I think this assessment does.
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Time: The Growing Backlash Against Overparenting
This past week, Time magazine's cover story addressed the phenomenon of "overparenting" (or helicopter parenting, or pushy parents, or whatever you want to call it). Writer Nancy Gibbs chronicles the backlash against a perceived tendency toward too much hovering and protectiveness, and treating even grown children as if they were babies.
I had a few thoughts on the piece. First, Gibbs does a good job of bringing up some nuances to all this that don't normally get addressed. One is that Americans in general have a real problem with statistics. We worry more about potential predators lurking on the half mile route between home and school than, say, an aunt's somewhat creepy boyfriend, even though statistically, the latter is far more likely to be a problem. Crime rates in places like New York City are at 1960s levels, and yet few parents let their kids wander alone around city neighborhoods, which 1960s parents were far more comfortable with. She also acknowledges that if you have a choice between an overinvolved or an underinvolved parent, you are probably better off with the first.
But then she doesn't really follow through on this thought. The reality is that some small number of children do have overbearing, hovering helicopter parents -- some small percentage of generally well-to-do children (whose parents read Time magazine). Unfortunately, though, far greater numbers of children don't have the advantage of parents who can do a lot for them. Various studies have put the percentage of children who aren't involved in any extra-curricular activities at 40-50%. A stunning number of children spend their non-school hours in something researchers charmingly refer to as "self-care." This generally involves watching a lot of TV because mom or dad aren't home, and that's the safest thing around to do. While some children get headaches and symptoms of anxiety because their academic work is too strenuous, the vast majority aren't being challenged nearly to the extent of their abilities.
I find overparenting as funny as the next person -- I like nothing better than making fun of parents who put hygienic gloves on their babies' hands so they never touch the dirty world. But there's also a problem with having this mocking and disapproval become the cultural narrative, especially in the context of gifted children.
Here's why. Few schools are really set up to handle the needs of highly gifted kids. This means that parents who have such kids are going to have to advocate for their children. They will have to get involved in the classroom, see what the children are learning, and step in to suggest various accommodations. Gifted kids also often need lots of outside-school stimulation as well. Many have amazing talents for music or art or things like that, and to develop their talents, these kids need lessons, coaches, etc. Often they need to travel to different towns, or go to special camps or what have you in order to interact with other students of similar abilities.
So -- if you're not into gifted education, which a great number of schools and educators, alas, are not -- what do you call a parent who is constantly advocating for her child, signing her up for violin and piano lessons at age 6 and setting up a math league so she can participate? A pushy parent, that's what. But I'd argue that that parent is simply doing what her gifted child needs. That's not pushy parenting, that's good parenting of a pushy kid.
I had a few thoughts on the piece. First, Gibbs does a good job of bringing up some nuances to all this that don't normally get addressed. One is that Americans in general have a real problem with statistics. We worry more about potential predators lurking on the half mile route between home and school than, say, an aunt's somewhat creepy boyfriend, even though statistically, the latter is far more likely to be a problem. Crime rates in places like New York City are at 1960s levels, and yet few parents let their kids wander alone around city neighborhoods, which 1960s parents were far more comfortable with. She also acknowledges that if you have a choice between an overinvolved or an underinvolved parent, you are probably better off with the first.
But then she doesn't really follow through on this thought. The reality is that some small number of children do have overbearing, hovering helicopter parents -- some small percentage of generally well-to-do children (whose parents read Time magazine). Unfortunately, though, far greater numbers of children don't have the advantage of parents who can do a lot for them. Various studies have put the percentage of children who aren't involved in any extra-curricular activities at 40-50%. A stunning number of children spend their non-school hours in something researchers charmingly refer to as "self-care." This generally involves watching a lot of TV because mom or dad aren't home, and that's the safest thing around to do. While some children get headaches and symptoms of anxiety because their academic work is too strenuous, the vast majority aren't being challenged nearly to the extent of their abilities.
I find overparenting as funny as the next person -- I like nothing better than making fun of parents who put hygienic gloves on their babies' hands so they never touch the dirty world. But there's also a problem with having this mocking and disapproval become the cultural narrative, especially in the context of gifted children.
Here's why. Few schools are really set up to handle the needs of highly gifted kids. This means that parents who have such kids are going to have to advocate for their children. They will have to get involved in the classroom, see what the children are learning, and step in to suggest various accommodations. Gifted kids also often need lots of outside-school stimulation as well. Many have amazing talents for music or art or things like that, and to develop their talents, these kids need lessons, coaches, etc. Often they need to travel to different towns, or go to special camps or what have you in order to interact with other students of similar abilities.
So -- if you're not into gifted education, which a great number of schools and educators, alas, are not -- what do you call a parent who is constantly advocating for her child, signing her up for violin and piano lessons at age 6 and setting up a math league so she can participate? A pushy parent, that's what. But I'd argue that that parent is simply doing what her gifted child needs. That's not pushy parenting, that's good parenting of a pushy kid.
Monday, November 23, 2009
Obama launches "Educate to Innovate" STEM campaign
Today, the White House launched its new science, technology, engineering and math initiative, "Educate to Innovate." Backed by $260 million in cash and in-kind support from companies including Intel and organizations such as the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the initiative is supposed to complement the "Race to the Top" federal education spending. It has three main goals:
1. Increasing STEM literacy so all students can think critically in science, math, engineering and technology
2. Improving the quality of math and science teaching so American students are no longer outperformed by those in other nations
3. Expanding STEM education and career opportunities for underrepresented groups, including women and minorities.
The President and other partners in the Educate to Innovate campaign intend to use a variety of approaches to attack these issues. Time Warner will be sponsoring STEM after-school activities. Discovery Communications will work on science-related television programming. Sony, Microsoft, et al will sponsor game design competitions to produce STEM-related video games. A National Lab Day will push the idea of kids actually doing science as opposed to merely reading about it in textbooks. The White House will use its bully pulpit by hosting winners of science competitions.
Of course, I think it's great that this issue is getting attention, and it would be great if American students could top international comparisons in math and science. I just want to bring up a few issues that I'm not sure are going to be addressed by all this:
1. Much of the talk is about "motivating" and "inspiring" young people to learn math and science. But I'm not sure the problem is a lack of inspiration. As discussed in this Scientific American piece (which quotes me), some 85 percent of American kids said in a Lemelson-MIT survey they are interested in science and math, and 80 percent said their schools had prepared them for a career in science. This is absolutely delusional. Barely half of kids are even prepared for college! You can think math and science are as cool as you want, but until you learn the tools, you won't actually be able to do anything truly cool at all. Sometimes the tools are boring. I absolutely love writing, but learning the rules of grammar still wasn't exactly fun. So what?
2. Many parts of the initiative are aimed at improving math and science education among under-served, or under-represented groups. For instance, Intel sent me a press release about the initiative that said "Intel will develop new models for student research programs in rural, inner-city, low-income and high-minority classrooms across the US that encourage hands-on science and math learning." This is great; much math and science education in America's less-privileged schools is truly awful. Per the president's priorities, I would also love to see more minority (and women) scientists and mathematicians.
However, this focus on under-served kids seems based on the widespread assumption that America's rich white kids are doing just fine. This isn't true. See this column I wrote for USA Today about how our top 10% would fare, internationally. The answer isn't pretty. America's place in the middle-of-the-pack, internationally, is not necessarily because of an "underclass" problem. Closing the gap between black and white students, and between poor and better-0ff students would improve things, but not nearly as much as people think it would. Any effort at making America top-of-the-world needs to face the harsh reality that even America's well-to-do suburban schools with their helicopter parents and loads of homework are, in fact, not cranking out armies of graduates ready to compete on the international stage. We live in an increasingly competitive world. The sooner we truly recognize that, the better.
1. Increasing STEM literacy so all students can think critically in science, math, engineering and technology
2. Improving the quality of math and science teaching so American students are no longer outperformed by those in other nations
3. Expanding STEM education and career opportunities for underrepresented groups, including women and minorities.
The President and other partners in the Educate to Innovate campaign intend to use a variety of approaches to attack these issues. Time Warner will be sponsoring STEM after-school activities. Discovery Communications will work on science-related television programming. Sony, Microsoft, et al will sponsor game design competitions to produce STEM-related video games. A National Lab Day will push the idea of kids actually doing science as opposed to merely reading about it in textbooks. The White House will use its bully pulpit by hosting winners of science competitions.
Of course, I think it's great that this issue is getting attention, and it would be great if American students could top international comparisons in math and science. I just want to bring up a few issues that I'm not sure are going to be addressed by all this:
1. Much of the talk is about "motivating" and "inspiring" young people to learn math and science. But I'm not sure the problem is a lack of inspiration. As discussed in this Scientific American piece (which quotes me), some 85 percent of American kids said in a Lemelson-MIT survey they are interested in science and math, and 80 percent said their schools had prepared them for a career in science. This is absolutely delusional. Barely half of kids are even prepared for college! You can think math and science are as cool as you want, but until you learn the tools, you won't actually be able to do anything truly cool at all. Sometimes the tools are boring. I absolutely love writing, but learning the rules of grammar still wasn't exactly fun. So what?
2. Many parts of the initiative are aimed at improving math and science education among under-served, or under-represented groups. For instance, Intel sent me a press release about the initiative that said "Intel will develop new models for student research programs in rural, inner-city, low-income and high-minority classrooms across the US that encourage hands-on science and math learning." This is great; much math and science education in America's less-privileged schools is truly awful. Per the president's priorities, I would also love to see more minority (and women) scientists and mathematicians.
However, this focus on under-served kids seems based on the widespread assumption that America's rich white kids are doing just fine. This isn't true. See this column I wrote for USA Today about how our top 10% would fare, internationally. The answer isn't pretty. America's place in the middle-of-the-pack, internationally, is not necessarily because of an "underclass" problem. Closing the gap between black and white students, and between poor and better-0ff students would improve things, but not nearly as much as people think it would. Any effort at making America top-of-the-world needs to face the harsh reality that even America's well-to-do suburban schools with their helicopter parents and loads of homework are, in fact, not cranking out armies of graduates ready to compete on the international stage. We live in an increasingly competitive world. The sooner we truly recognize that, the better.
Friday, November 20, 2009
State of the States...and really changing things
So I finally made my way through the epic National Association for Gifted Children's bi-annual State of the States Report. (I'm having trouble copying links on Blogger, if I didn't type that link exactly right, here it is: http://www.nagc.org/uploadedFiles/Information_and_Resources/State_of_the_States_2008-2009/2008-2009%20State%20of%20the%20States%20Report%20%28full%29.pdf)
We will discuss specific aspects more in coming weeks, but overall, the report makes a convincing case that gifted education is not particularly a national priority. The vast majority of states say that most aspects of gifted education are decided by local education agencies (LEAs). This includes policies toward acceleration and early kindergarten entrance, dual enrollment, etc. While 32 states mandate gifted education for kids who need it, only 6 of those states fully fund those mandates. While most states say that gifted education for young kids is done in regular classrooms, only 5 states require that regular classroom teachers receive any training in meeting the needs of gifted kids.
I'm sure this is not really a surprise to many parents of gifted kids. You probably spend a lot of time working with individual teachers and principals to get appropriate accommodations. Then your child moves up to a different school and you have to start all over again. Or maybe your district has good policies, but then you move to a new city and, again, you have to start from scratch. Sometimes there's even wide variance in policies within schools, and parents of gifted kids whisper among themselves about how to get the right teacher -- the one who understands how to meet their kids' needs (maybe she actually took an elective in this while getting certified!)
But anyway, while I'm very glad that NAGC has compiled all these statistics in one place, the larger question is, so what?
So we know that gifted education is not a national priority. We also know this is shortsighted and stupid in an era in which most of us have to compete on a global stage and our ability to attract top talent from other countries is diminishing. When an economy is based on brains, not brawn, then gifted students need "a responsive and challenging educational system to help them achieve their highest potential," as NAGC puts it (actually, I'd say all kids need that, but that's a different point).
But again, so what? Advocates have been crying in the wilderness for years that doing great things like the next equivalent of putting a man on the moon requires nurturing top students. But the powers that be do not seem to care. In general, the federal powers that be are more obsessed with the accountability movement. State powers that be are gnashing their teeth over their current budget crises. So it's no surprise that most decisions about gifted education are left to local education agencies.
But there is an upside to this: it is a lot easier to change things at the local level than at the state or national level. Perhaps someday we'll have national education officials who are really into gifted education, but since education secretaries (and deputies and policy makers) tend to come from the ranks of state and local education bureaucrats, gifted advocates need to pack the pipeline. And that means holding as many of these spots as possible. Local education authorities have vast discretion in making gifted education work. If gifted education is a decision maker's pet cause, it will get attention.
Who are these decision makers? Broadly, the people with the most power to change things through personal discretion include professors at teachers' colleges (who can work gifted education into the curriculum), principals and district administrators, and local school board members.
The first three are not necessarily going to be easy professions for gifted advocates to enter, as you generally need classroom experience and certain degrees to become a principal, professor or administrator. Many gifted education advocates are parents with different professions (though we can certainly try to lobby these people! And long term, we can encourage like minded people to go into the education profession).
But running for school board is a different matter. I'd love to hear from people who've done a lot of advocacy on the local level, but it seems that if there were strong advocates for gifted education on a local school board, gifted education would become a bigger priority on the local level -- which is where most decisions are made on these things anyway. I'd love to see advocates run for school board anywhere they can -- and hopefully start changing some of the statistics in the State of the States report.
We will discuss specific aspects more in coming weeks, but overall, the report makes a convincing case that gifted education is not particularly a national priority. The vast majority of states say that most aspects of gifted education are decided by local education agencies (LEAs). This includes policies toward acceleration and early kindergarten entrance, dual enrollment, etc. While 32 states mandate gifted education for kids who need it, only 6 of those states fully fund those mandates. While most states say that gifted education for young kids is done in regular classrooms, only 5 states require that regular classroom teachers receive any training in meeting the needs of gifted kids.
I'm sure this is not really a surprise to many parents of gifted kids. You probably spend a lot of time working with individual teachers and principals to get appropriate accommodations. Then your child moves up to a different school and you have to start all over again. Or maybe your district has good policies, but then you move to a new city and, again, you have to start from scratch. Sometimes there's even wide variance in policies within schools, and parents of gifted kids whisper among themselves about how to get the right teacher -- the one who understands how to meet their kids' needs (maybe she actually took an elective in this while getting certified!)
But anyway, while I'm very glad that NAGC has compiled all these statistics in one place, the larger question is, so what?
So we know that gifted education is not a national priority. We also know this is shortsighted and stupid in an era in which most of us have to compete on a global stage and our ability to attract top talent from other countries is diminishing. When an economy is based on brains, not brawn, then gifted students need "a responsive and challenging educational system to help them achieve their highest potential," as NAGC puts it (actually, I'd say all kids need that, but that's a different point).
But again, so what? Advocates have been crying in the wilderness for years that doing great things like the next equivalent of putting a man on the moon requires nurturing top students. But the powers that be do not seem to care. In general, the federal powers that be are more obsessed with the accountability movement. State powers that be are gnashing their teeth over their current budget crises. So it's no surprise that most decisions about gifted education are left to local education agencies.
But there is an upside to this: it is a lot easier to change things at the local level than at the state or national level. Perhaps someday we'll have national education officials who are really into gifted education, but since education secretaries (and deputies and policy makers) tend to come from the ranks of state and local education bureaucrats, gifted advocates need to pack the pipeline. And that means holding as many of these spots as possible. Local education authorities have vast discretion in making gifted education work. If gifted education is a decision maker's pet cause, it will get attention.
Who are these decision makers? Broadly, the people with the most power to change things through personal discretion include professors at teachers' colleges (who can work gifted education into the curriculum), principals and district administrators, and local school board members.
The first three are not necessarily going to be easy professions for gifted advocates to enter, as you generally need classroom experience and certain degrees to become a principal, professor or administrator. Many gifted education advocates are parents with different professions (though we can certainly try to lobby these people! And long term, we can encourage like minded people to go into the education profession).
But running for school board is a different matter. I'd love to hear from people who've done a lot of advocacy on the local level, but it seems that if there were strong advocates for gifted education on a local school board, gifted education would become a bigger priority on the local level -- which is where most decisions are made on these things anyway. I'd love to see advocates run for school board anywhere they can -- and hopefully start changing some of the statistics in the State of the States report.
Friday, November 13, 2009
Ten9Eight
Last night I attended the premiere of Mary Mazzio's latest film, Ten9Eight. This documentary about the teen finalists in the Network for Teaching Entrepreneurship's annual business plan competition is showing in select AMC theaters today around the country (Gifted Exchange has covered NFTE in the past, under its previous name, the National Foundation for Teaching Entrepreneurship).
There are very few positive films out there about bright teenagers doing good things with their lives, and fewer still that feature hip hop dance, slam poetry, Popsycakes and (very briefly) the Washington Redskin cheerleaders. So if you live in NYC, LA, Boston, Washington DC, Kansas City, Miami, Atlanta or Chicago, go check it out!
There are very few positive films out there about bright teenagers doing good things with their lives, and fewer still that feature hip hop dance, slam poetry, Popsycakes and (very briefly) the Washington Redskin cheerleaders. So if you live in NYC, LA, Boston, Washington DC, Kansas City, Miami, Atlanta or Chicago, go check it out!
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Myths of Gifted Education
Gifted Child Quarterly recently ran a package tackling various "myths" of gifted education. This page has a list of the short articles, with links to PDFs of each of them. They're all written by big name researchers in the field and are worth checking out.
I particularly enjoyed reading James Borland's take on the problems of specifying what percentage of the population is gifted, mostly because he weaves in the movie Spinal Tap when discussing IQ. Obviously, any scale of measuring something as varied as human intelligence is going to have some arbitrariness to it, much like the amp in Spinal Tap that is extremely cool because it goes to 11, rather than 10.
Many an advocate of gifted education has gotten caught in this argumentative trap. The problem is then when people -- acknowledging this issue -- get sucked into another logical fallacy, such as that just because something is difficult to measure it must not exist or must not exist in differing quantities. Even if we had absolutely no good way to measure intelligence, or creativity, or things like that, that wouldn't mean that some people wouldn't be better at coming up with new solutions, or solving problems, than others. The fact that relying on IQ tests as a measure of giftedness has historically excluded some bright people from programs doesn't mean that no one's gifts should be nurtured. The answer is to individualize education -- to challenge everyone to the extent of their abilities. That involves turning teachers into coaches, developing everyone's talents as best we can.
I particularly enjoyed reading James Borland's take on the problems of specifying what percentage of the population is gifted, mostly because he weaves in the movie Spinal Tap when discussing IQ. Obviously, any scale of measuring something as varied as human intelligence is going to have some arbitrariness to it, much like the amp in Spinal Tap that is extremely cool because it goes to 11, rather than 10.
Many an advocate of gifted education has gotten caught in this argumentative trap. The problem is then when people -- acknowledging this issue -- get sucked into another logical fallacy, such as that just because something is difficult to measure it must not exist or must not exist in differing quantities. Even if we had absolutely no good way to measure intelligence, or creativity, or things like that, that wouldn't mean that some people wouldn't be better at coming up with new solutions, or solving problems, than others. The fact that relying on IQ tests as a measure of giftedness has historically excluded some bright people from programs doesn't mean that no one's gifts should be nurtured. The answer is to individualize education -- to challenge everyone to the extent of their abilities. That involves turning teachers into coaches, developing everyone's talents as best we can.
Monday, November 09, 2009
The Left-Brain Child
Today, Gifted Exchange welcomes Katharine Beals, author of the new book Raising a Left-Brain Child in a Right-Brain World. Beals, who teaches at the University of Pennsylvania's Graduate School of Education, argues that "bright, quirky, socially awkward children" are at a distinct disadvantage in today's schools, which emphasize group learning and class participation. While certainly not all gifted children fit that description, the stereotypical "nerd" does -- and Beals argues that such children need help from parents and schools to best make their way in the world. Her book also contains a section on parenting mildly autistic children; if you've got a twice exceptional child, that is well worth checking out.
Gifted Exchange: Describe what you mean by “left-brain children.”
Beals: I’m using the term “left-brain” not in a neurological sense, but in the everyday sense that has permeated our language via popular psychology. So by “left-brained,” I mean those who think abstractly and logically, analyze and systematize, process things linearly (or one at a time), attune themselves to verbal rather than nonverbal communication, and prefer to work independently.
GE: What do you make of books like Daniel Pink’s A Whole New Mind, which claim that what you label a “left-brain” style has previously been dominant, and the new economy will be based on a “right-brain” style? Do you think left-brainers are actually in the minority? Have they always been?
Beals: I agree with Pink that the “left-brain” style no longer dominates in terms of what most Americans consider important. As I argue in my book, this is especially true in our K-12 classrooms. But I believe left-brain thinking has always been essential to our economy, especially when it comes to scientific and technological advancement, and I find it rather alarming that Pink thinks we can comfortably outsource all of this to India.
I’m no expert on nature vs. nurture, but I suspect that the left-brain disposition is largely innate, and thus independent of societal trends. Whether or not left-brainers are in a minority really depends on where you draw the line. How social you are, and how linear a thinker you are, is really a matter of degree. Also, you might be fairly social but extremely analytical, or vice versa—in which case some, but not all right-brain trends will be problematic for you.
GE: Is there any relationship between giftedness and being “left-brained?”
Beals: I think there’s quite a strong relationship, particularly when it comes to academics. Strong analytical skills lead to aptitude for math, science, foreign language, and expository writing. The problem, though, is that fewer and fewer educators appreciate this connection. Today’s schools increasingly de-emphasize analytical skills in favor of social and organizational skills and visual creativity. The unfortunate result is that many bright left-brainers are no longer recognized as gifted.
GE: How can parents and schools teach left-brain children to cope with social situations?
Beals: Many unsocial children need more structure than the typical peer group environments offered by schools, which are often unstructured and unsupervised. Much more ideal is a social skills group run by a trained specialist—e.g., a developmental psychologist or speech/language therapist. Some schools offer this, but typically parents must look outside the schools to private clinics.
In my book, I also recommend several textbooks that focus on conversation rules in particular. Though these books were written for students learning English as a foreign language, and American culture as a foreign culture, much of what they say is also helpful to left-brain Americans.
GE: Has the increased use of text-based and virtual communication (email, texting, online games, etc.) opened up new ways to interact for socially awkward kids?
Beals: Yes, it has, and this is a very promising development. Many unsocial left-brainers are much more comfortable with text-based than with in-person communication. With text, all the social cues are right there, written out in front of you, and there’s more time to figure what to say and how to say it. Online games like Second Life, where you customize a two-dimensional “avatar” to stand in for yourself, have been a godsend to many shy or socially awkward kids--a non-threatening way to make friends and practice social skills.
GE: What makes math “reform” (making it more social and right-brain friendly) appealing to educators? Can a good teacher do it (or the other ideas, like Writing Across the Curriculum or Project-Based Learning that you criticize) right? Or is it inherently problematic?
Beals: Reform math appeals to educators partly because education schools have been pushing it for years, partly because it aligns with state math tests, and partly because it involves a lot less drill than you find in traditional math programs. But because it diverges so drastically from the structured, linear, explicit teaching environments that left-brainers depend on, and because the actual math is so much less challenging than it used to be, it’s hard to imagine how it can be successfully adapted to left-brain learners. An excellent alternative to Reform Math is Singapore Math: rigorous math without the intensive drill that turned off many students to math a generation ago.
Writing Across the Curriculum and Project-Based Learning are different. What makes these practices problematic is when the assignments are open-ended or large in scale—both of which can overwhelm left-brain learners. The way around this is for teachers or parents to break assignments down into smaller pieces and make the instructions more explicit, spelling them out step by step. Also, teachers need to be more flexible about the projects’ “creativity” requirements, recognizing analytical in addition to visual creativity.
There’s one element of Writing Across the Curriculum from which left-brainers should be exempt, however, and that is the requirement that they explain their answers to math problems verbally. Many left-brainers do arithmetic automatically in their heads in ways that can’t be explained in words.
GE: The main message seems to be that all kids are different. Is individualized education the answer?
Beals: To some extent it is. The easiest way to make school more hospitable to left-brainers, especially in the short run, is to let these kids work on their own, at their own rates—especially since left-brain students typically thrive when working independently. This also allows their more social classmates to continue working in groups. However, an argument can be made that certain subjects, especially math and science, need to be more left-brained and rigorous for everyone—indeed, that the future of our country depends on it.
Gifted Exchange: Describe what you mean by “left-brain children.”
Beals: I’m using the term “left-brain” not in a neurological sense, but in the everyday sense that has permeated our language via popular psychology. So by “left-brained,” I mean those who think abstractly and logically, analyze and systematize, process things linearly (or one at a time), attune themselves to verbal rather than nonverbal communication, and prefer to work independently.
GE: What do you make of books like Daniel Pink’s A Whole New Mind, which claim that what you label a “left-brain” style has previously been dominant, and the new economy will be based on a “right-brain” style? Do you think left-brainers are actually in the minority? Have they always been?
Beals: I agree with Pink that the “left-brain” style no longer dominates in terms of what most Americans consider important. As I argue in my book, this is especially true in our K-12 classrooms. But I believe left-brain thinking has always been essential to our economy, especially when it comes to scientific and technological advancement, and I find it rather alarming that Pink thinks we can comfortably outsource all of this to India.
I’m no expert on nature vs. nurture, but I suspect that the left-brain disposition is largely innate, and thus independent of societal trends. Whether or not left-brainers are in a minority really depends on where you draw the line. How social you are, and how linear a thinker you are, is really a matter of degree. Also, you might be fairly social but extremely analytical, or vice versa—in which case some, but not all right-brain trends will be problematic for you.
GE: Is there any relationship between giftedness and being “left-brained?”
Beals: I think there’s quite a strong relationship, particularly when it comes to academics. Strong analytical skills lead to aptitude for math, science, foreign language, and expository writing. The problem, though, is that fewer and fewer educators appreciate this connection. Today’s schools increasingly de-emphasize analytical skills in favor of social and organizational skills and visual creativity. The unfortunate result is that many bright left-brainers are no longer recognized as gifted.
GE: How can parents and schools teach left-brain children to cope with social situations?
Beals: Many unsocial children need more structure than the typical peer group environments offered by schools, which are often unstructured and unsupervised. Much more ideal is a social skills group run by a trained specialist—e.g., a developmental psychologist or speech/language therapist. Some schools offer this, but typically parents must look outside the schools to private clinics.
In my book, I also recommend several textbooks that focus on conversation rules in particular. Though these books were written for students learning English as a foreign language, and American culture as a foreign culture, much of what they say is also helpful to left-brain Americans.
GE: Has the increased use of text-based and virtual communication (email, texting, online games, etc.) opened up new ways to interact for socially awkward kids?
Beals: Yes, it has, and this is a very promising development. Many unsocial left-brainers are much more comfortable with text-based than with in-person communication. With text, all the social cues are right there, written out in front of you, and there’s more time to figure what to say and how to say it. Online games like Second Life, where you customize a two-dimensional “avatar” to stand in for yourself, have been a godsend to many shy or socially awkward kids--a non-threatening way to make friends and practice social skills.
GE: What makes math “reform” (making it more social and right-brain friendly) appealing to educators? Can a good teacher do it (or the other ideas, like Writing Across the Curriculum or Project-Based Learning that you criticize) right? Or is it inherently problematic?
Beals: Reform math appeals to educators partly because education schools have been pushing it for years, partly because it aligns with state math tests, and partly because it involves a lot less drill than you find in traditional math programs. But because it diverges so drastically from the structured, linear, explicit teaching environments that left-brainers depend on, and because the actual math is so much less challenging than it used to be, it’s hard to imagine how it can be successfully adapted to left-brain learners. An excellent alternative to Reform Math is Singapore Math: rigorous math without the intensive drill that turned off many students to math a generation ago.
Writing Across the Curriculum and Project-Based Learning are different. What makes these practices problematic is when the assignments are open-ended or large in scale—both of which can overwhelm left-brain learners. The way around this is for teachers or parents to break assignments down into smaller pieces and make the instructions more explicit, spelling them out step by step. Also, teachers need to be more flexible about the projects’ “creativity” requirements, recognizing analytical in addition to visual creativity.
There’s one element of Writing Across the Curriculum from which left-brainers should be exempt, however, and that is the requirement that they explain their answers to math problems verbally. Many left-brainers do arithmetic automatically in their heads in ways that can’t be explained in words.
GE: The main message seems to be that all kids are different. Is individualized education the answer?
Beals: To some extent it is. The easiest way to make school more hospitable to left-brainers, especially in the short run, is to let these kids work on their own, at their own rates—especially since left-brain students typically thrive when working independently. This also allows their more social classmates to continue working in groups. However, an argument can be made that certain subjects, especially math and science, need to be more left-brained and rigorous for everyone—indeed, that the future of our country depends on it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
