In fact, youthful prodigiousness is the leading edge of a wider cultural preoccupation with early high performance in our meritocratic era. Among the educated elite, the superchild has become the model child, and the model parent is an informed advocate with an eye trained on his or her child's future prospects. The unusual fate of the precocious child - to become adultified early and yet to remain hovered over for longer - is echoed in the situation of the privileged child, ushered along a highly scheduled path of credentialed performance from cradle onward, with college and career ever in mind.A good starting point is always: Let kids be kids. Left to their own devices, what will become of the gifted?
In short, thanks not least to the gifted-child movement itself, the mission of discovering and molding precocious talent has been mainstreamed more successfully than anyone expected. Once in a while, the more mundane variety of Ivy League-aspiring kids and their ambitious parents pause to ask themselves whether the ethos entails too much early pressure to compete. For truly extraordinary kids, a different version of the question arises, but it is considered less often: could it be that in the quest to pinpoint and promote exceptional youthful promise, testers and contests and advocates may have unwittingly introduced early pressure to conform, not to the crowd but to an assiduously monitored, preprofessionalized and future-oriented trajectory?
Look at eminences in the past, and what stands out in their childhoods is an animus toward school, a tolerance for solitude and families with lots of books. What also stands out is families with "wobble" - which means stress and, often, risk-taking parents with strong opinions - rather than bastions of supportiveness where a child's giftedness is ever in self-conscious focus. Norbert Wiener, the founder of cybernetics and himself a prodigy who went to Tufts at 11 and Harvard at 15, wrote that prodigious children need to develop a "reasonably thick skin" - to feel they aren't demonized and will find a niche, but not to expect the world to supply a spotlight. Simonton speaks of the importance of being able to be "on the failure track for a while, take time off, take a real risk."I love the notion of "the failure track" and the suspicion that it might do you some good. "Families with 'wobble'" is kind of a cool concept too.
UPDATE: Victor Fleischer favors special programs for gifted kids. I'd like to see all kids perfectly placed with programs fine-tuned to their needs. But in an imperfect world, whose needs will be met first? Whom should we be most concerned with? If gifted kids get extra, which kids will get the magic label that gives them more? The ones with parents who fight for it? I'm just thinking about how the system plays out in real life.
পোস্টগুলি
২৫টি মন্তব্য:
From the article: [The Davidson's] are on a mission to remedy what they are convinced is a widespread neglect of exceptionally talented children. That means challenging the American myth that they are weirdos or Wunderkinder best left to their own devices or made to march with the crowd.
This is stupid. If you are in the 99.9th percentile in intelligence, you ARE a wierdo. At best, one in 1000 people will be in your intellectual peer group. This becomes a serious challenge for one's psyche. Do you become arrogant and aloof because most everyone around you is an idiot? Do you dumb yourself down to fit in? Both? Remember, to these people, the vast majority of their peer group seems to be retarded. (Hellfire, make that the vast majority of all people.)Image being living your life amongst people who are mentally deficient - THAT is what life is for these people.
My guess is that in at least 90% of the high schools in this country, the brightest and most talented students are either barely scraping by, both academicallly and socially, or have already dropped out.
Drop out, bum around, enjoy life, read, work, then take the GED and go to college. Unless your forte is science, isn't that a good plan? (Kids: Judge for yourselves. Don't just follow my advice! But if your local schools are just wasting your time...)
Unfortunately "drop out" is not a choice until one reaches the legal age to cease school.
I think the real shame here is that we have largely eliminated institutional support for exceptionally bright kids, defined it out of existence ("he's gifted--look at the bright colors he dresses in" or badly warped it ("gifted children should tutor less gifted").
The lack of institutional support is not a terrible burden for most gifted children -- they have gifted parents who tend to be informed and wealthy and will obtain better education for their kids regard;ess of what public institutions provide (pace discussion about the Bell Curve).
Who suffers? The occasional gifted child who does not have intense parental support-- often the poor disadvantaged child.
Nice institutional hit on class mobility.
One of my classmates at Andover, was the son of an unemployed Appalachian coal miner. His childhood background was unbearably dismal --among other things he was a very small kid because of malnutrition.
He was encouraged to go to Andover, because one of his public school teachers was the sister-in-law of an Andover alumnus, and she and the alumnus went the extra mile to make sure that this bright kid had the opportunity and preparation for it.
How often does that deus ex machina happen? Yet some similar private effort is necessary for a gifted child with poor support to get the education he can benefit from.
The official policy, never enunciated, has a strong flavor of holding back the gifted to make the overall more "equitable".
Ann, I don't know why you think your plan isn't good for those interested in science. Most science teachers in public schools don't know their subjects terribly well. I would especially recommend dropping out to any bright science-oriented student.
"Who suffers? The occasional gifted child who does not have intense parental support-- often the poor disadvantaged child."
I suppose -- but that isn't really a problem unique to gifted children. It would seem to be a problem for pretty much all disadvantaged children, that their educational attainment is hampered by insufficiently supportive homes.
That said, though, I don't see there as being a real problem for "gifted" children in the US.
I wasn't in the top, top percentile, but I did start taking college-level classes at the age of 13 (1st yr in HS), and started taking classes (math) at the local colleges from my sophomore year. And yes, I got a 1600 on my SAT (but at 15, not like 12 or whatever). While I was exceptionally fortunate in that first, there were AP classes available at my school, and second, there was a nearby complex of colleges willing to let high school students take courses for $100 a semester, my sense of the American system is that overall, it's actually extremely flexible, for those whose parents are willing to work the system. If I compare to the systems back in Korea or Japan, where it's just about impossible to skip a year or jump straight into college, I think our system does pretty well.
Of course, we might object to the fact that parents have to be involved to prevent their gifted children from getting stuck on the normal track. But I'm at a loss to think of any way US public schools could reasonably be rearranged to equalise the disparity between those children fortunate enough to have deeply involved parents and those children whose parents practice a benign neglect.
That said, re:
"I think the real shame here is that we have largely eliminated institutional support for exceptionally bright kids, defined it out of existence"
Was there ever a time when there was "institutional" support for exceptionally bright children? I mean, my parents both entered college a year or two early (my mother having mostly learned her English in High School), and I have never heard from them that there was any sort of institutional support for them as "bright." Maybe they just weren't "exceptional" enough, by the standards of the time, or maybe their school didn't have such a thing, but my understanding was that the concern over special educational opportunities for bright young things is actually quite recent. If you look at programs like Johns Hopkins' CTY, and their SET, these aren't programs that have been around very long. They've been here, what, maybe 20 years at the most? Was there actual institutional support in the past?
Institutional support?
In Florida in the late seventies-early 80's my brother (much younger) was identified as a bright kid and was transferred from the normal public school to the school that the district maintained for bright kids. It was distinguished by advanced clases, a free curriculum where kids were individually placed in particular courses rather than being age or class assigned (a fourth grader might be placed in a ninth grade science class) and an expanded curriculum sometimes organized by the kids.
The system was ended in the late eighties because it was "expensive" (unsupported by any data except bus costs) and because it was "inappropiate" as it deprived other schools of the "benefit" of the bright kids, while depriving the kids of the "benefit" of exposure to less bright kids.
Well, that would fall in the gap between my generation and my parents' I suppose. And Florida, since they were in Texas, and I was in California.
Yet another argument for ending compulsory primary education.
Schools serve their warehouse function much better than they do their education function.
It makes more sense to have heavily subsidized day-care for kids and let parents pay for and choose the type of education their children receive than the other way around as it is now.
Anyone who was even moderately bright as a child probably remembers the dragging on and on and on and on and on and on of pointless lessons that should be taught in a tenth the time. I know I made much mischief due to the boredom.
No, I meant what I said. If a child is unlucky enough to be born to a family that would neglect to educate their child voluntarily, then the lack of compulsion won't change the likely negative trajectory that that child's life will follow.
A large part of the problem within primary education (aside from teachers unions) is that you have students who have no interest in education with parents who have no interest in their child being educated. Just one of these kids can make the job of educating a class exponentially more difficult for the teacher.
We don't compel people to have or teach their children values, hygiene or manners, yet most people find a way to follow a fairly acceptable path without government mandates in these areas. I don't think education should be any different.
That makes me a fringe nutzoid, I know, but schools comprised solely of willing students (or at least engaged parents) would function at a far higher level than the current system.
Compulsion hasn't prevented bad parents from letting their children fall behind, instead it has dragged down the marginal cases that might have succeeded had they been exposed to a social group that expects success.
Liberty is a nasty thing sometimes, but more liberty is better than less in most cases, even the liberty to fail.
"I wonder how many "gifted" children are only-children pushed by over-attentive boomer parents."
To a certain extent, the potential of some gifted children wouldn't have been realised without parental pressure. But there are some levels of "gifted" childhood attainment where if you can't do the work, you really just can't do it. If you can do calculus at 10 and graduate level work at 15, I suspect that's not just "boomer parents" pushing you -- you really have to have some special potential that's come out there.
On the other hand, my own sense is that my innate potential may be above average, but not that above average. For example, Calculus at 13 seems to me like it would attainable for most people, if it weren't for the way elementary school education goes over the same stuff every year, on the assumption that children have forgotten it all over the summer. So also with college science and the like, from that time -- the only barrier to 12 year olds taking introductory college science, I think, is that most of them don't have the algebra skills necessary (or the calculus for elementary physics). To that degree, at least, pushing children probably works fine, and to the extent they can take it, I suspect I'll push my own children about that way, when I have them.
Identified (along with my younger brother two years later) as a "gifted" child in the early 70's we were lucky enough to transfer to a MGM (Mentally Gifted Minors) program on California's Central Coast. Program criteria as described to us by my mother years later was scoring over 132 on standardized IQ tests. Mom didn't want us to just "squeak" into the program and insisted on knowing her boys wouldn't be the "dumb" smart kids. Apparently we did ok on the tests. While in the three year program we were treated to 3 times as many field trips as the other kids, attended symphonies, ballets and plays, had the best teachers (at least we thought so) and were left to our own devices in many subjects. My 6th grade teacher taught us Latin, Spanish and Greek for a year and I credit him with my ability to figure out most words just by looking for the root.
So what did all this lead us to accomplish? Not much...or everything...depends on who you talk to. I've lived a life with a constant feeling of not living up to my "potential."
I was utilized by my high school Academic Decathlon coach as a "C" student...and we won a lot...because I knew a lot...and didn't do anything.
Everyone I've ever known (save my father...who I believe has already lived a version of my life) comments on how much you COULD'VE done with your life.
Bottom line: Let the kids be kids. I'm trying my best not to push my 3rd grader too hard...even though his reading level has been tested anywhere from the 6th to the 10th grade...so he can have an happy, fulfilling life. Without constantly thinking that he's not living up to someone else's expectations.
Wow, Capt Buck, thanks for telling that story. I must admit to being envious of all the great things you got to do in school. But you paid a price because it was all in the context of telling you you're better than the other kids. All the kids should have had access to enriching opportunities.
Balfegor
You may not realize it, but you are exceptional intellectually. Just look at the number of kids every year who get perfect 1600s, and esp. at your earlier age.
My daughter is one of the most gifted math students in her private school. And at the age you learned Calculus, I could teach her derivatives, but integration was beyond her. And I was the same way. I got 740 on the math SAT, but struggled with calculus (esp. integration) in high school. I skipped the first year of Calculus in college, and all of a sudden, it made sense in third semester Calculus as a freshman. (I went on to get a degree in mathematics).
Then again, this was before it was common to teach the subject in high school. We had one guy who had learned it himself (a little older than you, but not by much). He helped teach our high school class, got an 800 on his math SAT, and went to MIT, where I suspect he fit right in.
I have always been bothered by this. Growing up, we had five boys who all probably scored in the 99% range on IQ tests. Of us, two worked hard and excelled. Two of us loafed and did pretty well. And one essentially dropped out.
Whatever brains we got were (according to my father) from our mother, who was the outstanding student in three schools at the U. Ill. in the mid 1940s. Magna cum laude, Phi Beta Kappa, etc. She obviously applied herself, and then couldn't figure out why three of her sons weren't driven like she was.
I was the oldest, and they considered sending me to private school for high school, but didn't, mostly because of the finances of sending the next four too.
Because of this, I was behind sendding my daughter to private school (my ex probably had different reasons). And I have been very happy with the results. Most of the kids there would probably considered "gifted" by the standards used in public schools, and, indeed, a number moved to IB programs for high school.
I like a lot of things about private schools like this. For one, there are kids with all sorts of different gifts. Some, like my daughter, do exceptionally well in math. Others in writing, acting, singing, playing musical instruments, etc. And, indeed, there is no one who excels at everything.
Another thing I like is that both sports and fine arts are mandatory. Not PE, where you spend an hour a day doing something athletic, but rather, full bore team sports, running a couple of hours of practice a day, and a game or two a week.
This is, BTW, where she is probably the weakest in apptitude. One of my friends suggested that he had never met anyone with as little body consciousness as I, and I think she picked that up from me. BFD. She still gets out on the field and tries (hard). And she gains an appreciation that she is not the best at everything. There are girls in her class who may letter a dozen times in four years of high school. Her goal is once, and would be ecstatic to be able to do it in two sports.
Another thing I like is that they do really try to round the students. But this is the face of the adverse selection of the type of parents who would send their kids to private school - just what was suggested by this thread.
Ann I think suggested that she thinks that every kid should be challenged based on his/her own capabilities. And I don't see that happening with the public education system as we now know it.
The problem is that IQ is demonsterably distributed over a bell curve. And, as importantly, abilities in different areas are also distributed that way, with few, if any, excelling in all areas.
What you have now are classes taught to the mean. This means that a lot of kids are going to be underchallenged, and a lot overchallenged. Even splitting things into three tracks, as is sometimes done, doesn't help that much. Though not nearly as bright as I fear Balfegor to be in some of these subjects, I still suspect that I would have been bored in most high school gifted math classes.
And that is the problem. Kids obviously don't do well in classes where they seriously struggle for understanding, but many also don't do well when they are bored because the class isn't moving fast enough. Neither is good - but the public school systems are structurally incapable of addressing this problem.
The way I envision public schools today is that instead of just one bell curve, they may cater to two or three of them. One for those less bright (remedial), one for average, and one for the brightest (gifted). But, at best, that is still three bell curves, where most of the students aren't going to fall near the center of any one of them.
I should add that sending high school students to take college courses is not a complete solution either. Often, college classes don't move that much faster. Rather, as I envision it, the kids are pushed to jump ahead a grade or two in a subject, then work hard a year catching up, and then are bored again.
Maybe the solution is individualized computer directed learning where each kid can move at his or her own pace.
I also agree that parents are often more of a problem and a solution. But who can blame us? This country has turned into an educational meritocracy. To a very great extent, income is baed on degrees, both quantity, and quality. An MD, on average, is going to earn more than a high school dropout - often by quite a bit.
Knowing this, I think that it is totally understandable and expected that parents push their kids into gifted programs and the best college they can get the kids into.
So, how can you tell a parent to let their kids be kids, when doing that might seriously impact their chances of getting into a top college, or, ultimately, a lucrative profession?
Yes, there are those rare kids who drop out, later get a GED, and ultimately transfer into Harvard. But, by and large, most of the kids at schools like Harvard were driven. Maybe by their parent, and maybe internally. But driven.
Theoretically, SAT scores are supposed to level this sort of thing out. They don't, and are getting worse as time goes on. I have bought several used SAT prep books over the last couple years, and was struck how, for example, the math section has changed. It seems less devoted to abstract understanding, and more towards performance. How fast can the kids accurately do the problems? The questions seem less intellectually challenging, while putting more of a premium on having done that type of problem before - a lot of times. In short, on how well prepared the kids are.
And the new writing exam is worse. When I was in high school, I rarely had to write. Some for English, but not that much. My daughter writes every week. A lot. Poetry, prose, essays, lab reports. And she, along with her classmates, are learning to write well. Very well - she can already write better than I can.
So, the top colleges look a lot at grades and SAT scores. They have to, given the number of applicants they receive. But both are now heavily dependant upon how much the kids work in school. If you take two kids with comparable IQ scores, on average, the one who works harder in school is the one who is going to have the better grades and SAT scores, and is more likely to get into the more elite college.
Let me also add that the more education you get, and the higher its quality, the more challenging the career you are liable to have.
So, I am not the least bit surprised that a lot of parents push their kids. And some push too hard (I think my mother did for three of us).
knemon, that's pretty ironic given the forum.
Starless wrote: ... I don't think we want those with extraordinary intelligence to be limited by ... social pressure. In sports, it's perfectly acceptable to be freakishly talented, but in intellectual pursuits, someone who is freakishly talented is seen as trying to be "better" than everyone else.
Don't worry about it, Starless. The bright boys and girls in the white lab coats (requisite ratty clothes underneath) are going to drag everyone else into the future whether they like it or not. Or leave them behind to fend for themselves.
Ann Alt said:
Wow, Capt Buck, thanks for telling that story. I must admit to being envious of all the great things you got to do in school. But you paid a price because it was all in the context of telling you you're better than the other kids. All the kids should have had access to enriching opportunities.
I think you're right for the most part. I credit my mother with keeping our feet firmly planted on the ground, and she never even let us know our scores, fearing we'd get big heads.
One thing I failed to mention in my story is that I'm and incredibly lucky man, blessed with a beautiful, smart wife, wonderful kids, and the opportunity to serve my country. While I live with a personal feeling of "wasting" a good portion of my youth doing things I probably shouldn't have, I don't regret anything...at least not to much.
Challenge your kids, support them and let them know the sky's the limit...but don't berate them for a perceived lack of success. Success is a personal thing. I'm still learning how to define it...
Gene Expression had a conversation along these lines recently. The conclusion was that if everyone else decides to turn against the scientists and engineers, people will be eating each other in short order. The scientists and engineers have humanity by the short hairs, whether everyone else wants to acknowledge it or not.
How Randian!
education curriculum should be more flexible... people are born gifted so that they can use that talent to help for better future for one and for all...
To Icepick: I can certainly understand just how trying it can be... I was tested when I was 17 years old. According to the battery of tests, I have an "at or above 170" IQ. Even now, I occasionally find it a little difficult to relate to peers. And I certainly would never think about broadcasting my intelligence. I am now 25, and still find it a little difficult to find people who can offer commensurate stimulation. And people are sometimes inclined to think that having scores of interests is just... say, dilettantism, or "showing off". It still can be a little disheartening and discouraging. As one ages, it is easier to deal with, but, again, it is, every so often, discouraging.
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন