lew@ihuxr.UUCP (01/30/84)
Both my children are in a "talented and gifted" program at Lincoln School in Wheaton, Ill. Lisa is in the 3rd grade and Max is in the 1st grade. They were selected for this program by virtue of placing in the top 7% in some sort of IQ testing. I'm writing this to express my doubts about the value of the program, and my even graver doubts about the viability of the doctrines which motivate its existence. The basic idea is to provide the brighter kids with stimulating exercises that they wouldn't get in the regular curriculum. The material from which these are drawn forms quite a grab-bag, including memory exercises, logic puzzles (for "deductive thinking"), and "A is to B as C is to ..." exercises. I have problems reconciling almost every specific example I happen to see with my notion of appropriateness or even correctness. For example the "A is to B" stuff, which they called "analogies" was really wild. Each analogy was classified into one of ten (or so) relationships, which characterized the analogy. I obtained a master list from the teacher. It was a set of columns labeled at the top with the relationship, e.g. part:whole, or cause:effect. The analogies were incredibly confused, however. For example, under cause:effect one finds pig:pork as well as egg:bird. Therefore pig:pork <=> egg:bird. Some of the examples were even worse - insofar as I couldn't imagine any motivation at all for the classification. Oh well, on to the logic puzzles. These are the ones that require filling in a square array on the basis of clues like, "Jack and Jones met a pieman". ... so Jack is not Jones, nor the pieman, and so on. These puzzles are supposed to typify "deductive thinking", but I see them as a narrow and rigid example of this skill. The whole business of filling in the array was completely beyond Max's comprehension. Lisa understood the simple ones, and even the intermediate ones, but some were way beyond her. One clue was of the form "John is older than Smith but younger than Jill". From this one can infer that John is neither the youngest nor the oldest. Smith must be either youngest or next youngest (out of four persons) and so on. Some of the clues used "born before" instead of "older" and one naturally gets confused by this. I had to use paper to work this one out and I had to backtrack several times. I thought it was WAY too hard for Lisa. When one gets older, these puzzles are easy to analyze. In fact, one can readily consider programming a general solver of them, so that one's thinking moves to a higher level all together. My point is that I don't see the value of grinding in the ability to solve this type of puzzle at an early age. I don't think it forms the foundation for "logical thinking" at all. Here's an exercise that really irked me: Max's class was shown a projection of some arbitrary polygon, then asked to draw an outline "the same size and shape" on their papers. They all proceeded to do so, making the natural and unconscious scale transformation from the screen to the paper. The teacher then interrupted them, pointing out that the actual size of the projection was much larger than their papers, so the task was impossible. I find it ironic that as AI people struggle to automate the "do what I mean" capability which is so natural to humans, this program is evidently trying to train it out of the supposed best and brightest youth. It occurs to me that the sort of "clever answer" which the teacher gave is supposed to typify the answers given by "gifted" children which exasperate teachers expecting conventional answers. It seems they are trying to train this trait into the children ... kind of sick, don't you think? Earlier in the school year, my wife and I attended an orientation program for parents. The program director showed slides illustrating the theoretical underpinnings of the program. Part of this involved a theory of intelligence which has intelligence divided into some 100 or so distinct capabilities. As I watched this, I came to understand for the first time why some people raise such strident objections to the importance placed on IQ testing. It looked to me like pure quackery. Also, the philosophy of encouraging creativity seemed to involve a lot of self-contradiction. Some exercises were designed to elicit off beat answers, but others had certain expected answers which were even more arbitrary than conventional answers to traditional questions. Some answers which were were held up as examples of creativity were just plain wrong, in my opinion. The example I remember is this: some kids were asked to list gifts that they might like to give to people who were important to them. One child responded by listing people he might give gifts to. We were then told that there was nothing "wrong" with this response, it was just that child's interpretation of the question. Yet I looked down at my handout to see that one of the important skills to be taught was comprehension of English sentences! Finally, there seems to be a fundamental flaw in the concept of supplemental material. This stuff is touted as being basic to intellectual development. Why then is it withheld from the majority of students? It seems that students who do well on IQ testing are taken aside and trained in just the sort of thinking required to do well on these tests. Then their continued high scoring is held up as proof of the efficacy of the program. It seems to me that the only way to give legitimate recognition to childrens' varied abilities is to allow them to proceed through the SAME materials at different paces. This is done of course, and there are problems with it as well, but I am utterly unimpressed with the "talented and gifted" program. Well, I've come down pretty heavily on it, but my kids seem to view the whole thing as a positive experience, on balance. It's been good for Lisa to see that SOME schoolwork is difficult. Also, she was very impressed with the "don't jump to conclusions" lesson which was ancillary to her logic puzzle instruction. Anyway, they only have the class for one hour a week, so there's no reason to worry too much about it. Lew Mammel, Jr. ihnp4!ihuxr!lew
mel@houxe.UUCP (01/30/84)
One trap of the "talented and gifted" programs is that they form
another track for progression through the school system. Miss out
in getting into that track in 3rd grade and you are in trouble getting
advanced classes all through school. In our town there was serious
consideration given to a parent's suggestion that only kids in the
"talented and gifted" program could be considered for A's on their
7th and 8th grade report cards ("After all, they were the only kids
doing really outstanding work."). Considering how different kids are
in their talents, gifts, and rate of maturation, I really object to
the process of tracking kids on the basis of a few IQ tests and small
sample teacher's observation. My quiet, competent, perfectionist
daughter is just as bright as my "gifted" son, but faces only lower
level, lower rated High School courses because she is slower and
more careful on tests. Worse, one of the brighest, hardest working
kids I know in town tracked out on the bottom (probably from
kindergarten on) because he's black and poor. Mel Haaspcl@hlexa.UUCP (01/30/84)
To: ihuxr!lew As you have already noted, educational efforts directed at the gifted are full of some pretty questionable stuff, if not downright quackery. I think it is important to challenge what doesn't seem right to you (just as with the rest of life), but don't generalize from the problems with these specific efforts (implementation details) to the idea that special consideration for the gifted is mis-guided. It is crucial for both the children's intellectual AND EMOTIONAL well-being that their giftedness be addressed in some way. The trick is finding the better ways. I've done a bit of study re: psychology & education of the gifted, although it mostly pre-dated the recent surge of interest (fad?) in the topic. I think most of this stuff reflects the state of education in general, which is pretty poor. Probably the most important/constructive thing that you (as a parent) can do is think about the issue, talk to other parents who are in the same situation, and check out some of the literature (just to know what the teachers are working from, as much as to get any guidance for yourself). [As with many on the net, I also lived through the experience of being a 'gifted child', which in my case included skipping two grades in elementary school. The reaction of others to this fact sensitized me to a lot of issues related to giftedness.] The reason that I included 'emotional well-being' in my statement above probably deserves some elaboration. By hypothesis, gifted kids are different from their age-peers. By the very nature of this difference, they are quite likely to be aware of it. By the very nature of their youth, however, they are not likely to be able to *understand* their differentness without some proper guidance - some conceptual structure within which to organize the day-to-day manifestations of their differences, and to guide their adaptation to this situation of 'being different'. The question is not whether they will develop some explanation - they will. The questions instead are what explanation(s) they develop, how consistent/rational the explanations are, and whether it is something open to introspection and discussion (vs. silently shaping their self-image). Others (in the literature) have suggested, and my own observations (of others) have confirmed, that the natural explanations gifted kids will develop (without guidance) for their differences will be fundamentally negative - after all, isn't that the paradigm of 'being different' in our society? (Pick up a book on 'exceptional children' some time, and you'll find out that it's about mentally/emotionally/physically *handicapped* kids!) I believe this is particularly true when the child's environment 'pretends' that the child is just like the others. The 'negative' explanation may be as explicit as thinking that there is something 'wrong' with them that no-one will talk about. It can also appear as a (very) low self-image, due to the more-severe-than-typical mis-match between what they understand and what they can (physically or socially) *do*. I could go on for a long time on this subject (there's a lot of repressed rage in there), but I'll just give one example and then stop. One of my very close friends (of a few years ago) wanted nothing more than to be 'normal', and she suffered a deep frustration at her inability to be so (although when she dulled her mind with drugs, she could come close). She knew she was different, but her environment had never provided any constructive perspective from which to understand that difference. She had a very low self-esteem (exacerbated by cultural attitudes about women, which I won't go into), that had wrecked her life far more than just the failure to develop her intellectual abilities to their capacity. Scene: 3rd or 4th grade classroom, learning about fractions. She had an image of 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + ... What would it add up to? Teacher - you can't do things like that. Shut up and quit causing trouble. What's a kid going to feel? I'm sure lots of you have been through experiences like this. My point is not to bewail the insensitivity & ignorance a kid is confronted with in episodes like this (although that could make for another discussion), but to draw attention to the effect *persistent* experiences like that will have on a kid who has no way of understanding why these situations occur, and why they don't happen to the other kids. So. What's my conclusion? I guess just to reiterate the point with which I opened - namely, that programs for the gifted may (and should) be challenged on a number of grounds, but that it is imperative that some systematic adjustment be made in a child's environment to reflect their abilities. (These adjustments come in continuous gradations, of course, just as their abilities do). Even more, the fact of a child's giftedness must be made explicit to the child, so that THEY have a constructive way of thinking about their own experiences. (It needn't be given any particular label, perhaps, but they have to be able to think explicitly about the fact that they are different.) Paul Lustgarten AT&T Bell Laboratories, Short Hills, NJ ihnp4!hlexa!pcl
wetcw@pyuxa.UUCP (T C Wheeler) (01/30/84)
Our school district also runs one of the "gifted" programs. In our program, you can only be gifted if you come from a home where the income is somewhat more than $75,000 per year or your father or mother is a doctor, lawyer, or owns or runs a large business (i.e. more than 5 million net). Truely talented kids are shunted off if they do not fit the upper crust criteria of the 3rd grade teachers. As a result, they are placed in a track situation which can not be changed as long as they are in the local schools. God forbid that a child be shy or an introvert. They are labled dulards and never given an opportunity to break the stigma. Gifted programs sound good, but the methods for choosing the participants and the general sloppiness of their presentation leave room for criticism. I am very upset over what credentials most teachers have for teaching a particular subject. How can someone with only 6 credits of English presume to be an expert in the field? I can provide many many horror stories about teachers who cannot teach the subjjects they are assigned. Trying to get rid of them is another Pandora's Box. The whole issue of teaching, the NEA, and tenure makes me retch. Good teachers are vilified by their peers while bad teachers just hang around, messing up our children's minds. Does anyone else have any thoughts on how we can keep good teachers (besides raising salaries) and break the NEA monopoly so we can get rid of the bums? I didn't mean this to be a flame, but when it comes to teachers in our schools today, I get up on my Hobby Horse. And yes, I have been a candidate for the school board. The local teachers worked against me as they know how I feel about some of their methods and they were afraid I might try to dump some of them. I would. T. C. Wheeler
pc@hplabsb.UUCP (Patricia Collins) (01/31/84)
Having done a 4-year term as a mathematics teacher I can verify that the problems of adequate education are staggering. To keep this brief: 1. Parents in most districts have the power to determine who is placed in "gifted" classes. I had to teach children advanced math who had a superficial understanding of arithmetic. Their parents had simply phoned the Superintendent and demanded that their children be included. (Upwardly-mobile communities are notorious for this.) 2. I taught with a math teacher who came running into my classroom in a tither, wondering if there was any reference on "the square root of zero." Since dividing by zero "is impossible," there was no hope of finding a square root. I have seen many tests for English grammar which were, themselves, riddled with grammar errors. 3. It is my cynical opinion that education (public or private) is basically a mechanism for socialization. It teaches young people the social structures of their culture. I have no illusions that any school will teach my child the breadth and depth of knowledge and the learning skills which open doors. I allow that my child may encounter a FEW teachers with the skills to facilitate some of this learning. 4. With elementary teachers earning $8000 to start in private schools and $14000 to start in public schools, there is absolutely no hope of attracting ENOUGH people who are knowledgeable, skilled, and dedicated enough to raise American Education to the level we would all desire for our children. I did not quit teaching because of the salary. I quit because I was BORED by total lack of intellectual stimulation and by an entrenched bureaucracy which had lost sight of the children. Patricia Collins hplabs
ted@teldata.UUCP (01/31/84)
**** In the Edmonds Wash. schools the gifted program is called the "Challenge" program. My third grader is in his third year of Challenge and my 8th grader is in his second year. Three problems have become apparent with this program. The first is the tendency to short change the basics. It seems to me that the 1st & 2nd graders where expected to learn the 3 R's by themselves while the class did their challenge things. The second problem is with childrens egos. The first year David (the younger) was in Challenge my oldest boy (Steve) was in regular 6th grade. Near the end of the school year in became apparent that Steve was feeling somewhat inferior to his younger brother because of being in the Challenge program and Steve knew, rightly so, that he was as smart as his younger brother. Fortunately Steve's abilities where recognized by his 6th grade teachers and he was recommended and accepted into the junior high challenge program. Another problem with ego is with David who has expressed a belief that he is entitled to special privileges because he is special and his being in Challenge proves it. The third problem has just come to light in the last few weeks. Steve's Challenge teacher this year is not a very inspiring teacher and the kids find him boring. The program provides very little "challenge" other than some of the homework projects are more involved. This teacher is the antithesis of the enthusiastic, inspiring sort of teacher you would expect in a gifted student program. Something came to light yesterday that explains the situation somewhat, the "Challenge" positions are coveted by the non-tenured teachers because those positions provide better job security.
rf@wu1.UUCP (02/01/84)
When I was a wee little boy I was in the New York City public schools. My first teacher was a very decent sort. Unfortunately, she noticed I was smart (I was a show-off, like many smart kids.) I was then placed in what were called IGC (intellectually gifted children) classes for four years. Now, I'd have been a problem kid in any class. I hated sitting for long hours and I still do. But these classes . . . ! The IGC classes were given the nastiest teachers it has ever been my misfortune to encounter. I hated the classes. I hated school. Look very carefully at any class your "gifted" child is placed into. Ask yourself: is the teacher knowlegeable and competent? Is the teacher kind? What's really taught? Are they teaching intellectual snobbery? Are they just amusing kids who really know all that's in the next three years ciriculuum? Remember: these classes are often the revenge of the stupid on the smart. Randolph Fritz
preece@uicsl.UUCP (02/03/84)
#R:ihuxr:-86900:uicsl:22800011:000:2777 uicsl!preece Feb 3 13:16:00 1984 I don't know exactly what I'd push if I were on a school board. It's easy to pick on particular abuses and apparent conflicts between practice and common sense; it's harder to see how to restructure things to work better within a standard framework. Ideally each student would be able to follow each educational strand at his or her own pace. Teachers would be resources for students who drove themselves and would try to find ways to excite the rest so that they, too, would be self-driven. Ideally students would be more interested in what they were learning than in the fact that they were ahead of or behind others. Ideally a student showing a level of insight or intuition indicative of a special gift would be matched to a tutor capable of expanding that gift into a talent. Some private schools are fairly good models of this ideal, but only for a limited, selected few. Even there, though, the kids will ignore the ideal of egalitarianism. Anything you do to reward excellence, or even acknowledge it will be mis-used as a stratifier by the kids themselves. I don't see how you can avoid this in a competitive society. What you have to do is make sure your kids know that each is unique and special and that any obvious gift is not 'better' than an unknown one. But school boards have limited funds. It's hard to see how any teacher can make each of 35 kids feel special, though there are the gifted few who manage it. It's hard to see how a union can lead to the proper appreciation and promotion of merit and competence and hard to see how unorganized teachers can be protected from arbitrary and capricious administrators and school boards. Students who are self-motivated need a different kind of teacher interaction than those who think school is a drag. It's hard for one teacher to be both kinds of teacher. My father's on a school board. They don't spend a lot of time trying to find innovative ways to improve the effectiveness of teaching; they spend a LOT of time trying to figure out how to support the most basic programs in the face of severe money problems. I guess the bottom line is I'd rather they did SOMETHING special with gifted kids, even if it is half-assed and sometimes inept. The self image problem is very real. Doing something to acknowledge their specialness in one area may do much to cancel their feelings of social discomfort. There needs to a lot more insight in finding the gifted student hidden by cultural or economic handicaps. There are kids out there who should be in gifted programs but are stuck in the lowest tracks because they lack basic skills. Somehow we have to look beyond a superficial ignorance to find a hidden brilliance. IQ tests clearly aren't enough. scott preece ihnp4!uiucdcs!uicsl!preece
4375jlf@houxa.UUCP (J.FROMME) (02/08/84)
(First--I apologize for two aborted attempts to submit this--I'm new to the articles game.) I'm confused and a little concerned over the in-class "ability" groupings I see in our mid-NJ elementary school. They start in 1st grade (reading) and extend to more subjects in higher grades. It's great to see the faster little ones not being "held back" by the less fast, but the labeling this implies is quite clear to the kids and not all of them can "accept" it gracefully. Even more bothersome, to me, is the rather vague process by which a child might get moved, if he or she develops the ability to perform in a higher group, but has not covered the intervening material! Sounds like he or she is locked in! Anybody care to comment or relate your experiences?