|
0 members (),
216
guests, and
18
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
squishys
Unregistered
|
|
squishys
Unregistered
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,689
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,689 |
this seems to link into that other article where kids don't have enough recess and playtime to develop soft skills. Maybe the outcomes are linked to poor soft skills and a deeper look into why there is a shorten life span etc.
Does early institutional educational make for couch potatoes that don't play tennis on the side?
Poor health during one's lifetime because you went to preschool needs a closer look at maybe academics were too stressed and kids just didn't learn to have an outlet.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,007
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,007 |
Does early institutional educational make for couch potatoes that don't play tennis on the side? No, I think that's caused by being picked last for dodgeball.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 5,181
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 5,181 |
Formal schooling should not be delayed by at least 12 months merely because an over-emphasis on the three-Rs inappropriate academic placements starting at an early age can cause significant long-term damage to bright children, according to a leading academic. There. Fixed that for them. 
Schrödinger's cat walks into a bar. And doesn't.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,007
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,007 |
Formal schooling should not be delayed by at least 12 months merely because an over-emphasis on the three-Rs inappropriate academic placements starting at an early age can cause significant long-term damage to bright children, according to a leading academic. There. Fixed that for them. That doesn't fix the dodgeball issue.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 5,181
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 5,181 |
Seems to me that this retrospective analysis of this particular cohort (which has to be Terman data because there is pretty much nothing else like it) is inherently flawed by correlation fallacy and a major blind spot; neither then nor now is ""education"" (by which I mean most of the formal, institutional variety) appropriate for the cohort in the Terman study. As long as PG children are educated as though they were NT, ""education"" is going to be actively harmful for a fair number of them. Duh. Formal education is regarded very much as a necessary EVIL in our own household. Anecdote, yes-- but I see nothing in Terman's conclusions which fails to support my own hypothesis there. Dodgeball notwithstanding, of course. 
Last edited by HowlerKarma; 06/25/13 06:36 AM. Reason: to account for dodgeball
Schrödinger's cat walks into a bar. And doesn't.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 10
Junior Member
|
|
Junior Member
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 10 |
I skimmed the article that MON linked. From what I gathered, early school entrants had higher rates of alcohol use and lower psychological adjustment at middle age. These factors partially accounted for the increased overall mortality rates. The paper didn't mention anything about exercise.
What I found interesting is that being out-of-sync with age peers in 8th grade was not a predictor of poor outcomes later on. So I guess it would be safer to put gifted kids in first grade no earlier than 6, but then grade skip later as needed.
The weirdest thing was that "conscientious kids" had better outcomes than "cheerful kids". I would have thought the conscientious kids would be more likely to burn out. But I guess it depends on how they coded kids as conscientious vs cheerful.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 5,181
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 5,181 |
Some of the more insightful comments picked up on something that this author (as opposed to Terman's group) has conflated-- 05/17/2012 01:14 PM
"... gifted pupils from relatively affluent backgrounds suffered the most from being pushed “too far, too fast”."
Isn't this about parents hothousing kids? That's what I suspect, too-- and that this particular analysis of the Terman cohort was done with a particular axe to grind in this respect. I definitely can believe that pushing MG children to perform like HG ones can be damaging. Unquestionably. I can also believe that there are quite a number of affluent parents doing such pushing. (Though not so much, probably, in Terman's day; I don't really know.) I'm guessing that this shows us a lot more about how school environments are highly inappropriate for young children-- of any ability-- and not that they "aren't ready for school." So why did later entrants seemingly do better (and please note, I'm not sure that Terman's study supports a truly statistically meaningful conclusion here once one accounts for sampling methodology of the day)? Maybe because of asynchrony. They were all still CHILDREN first, and PG children second, after all. Perhaps they had more well-developed emotional regulation, better executive functions, just better COPING skills with that additional year or two... and maybe the reason why that mattered so much is that school is set up to be fairly toxic for PG children to begin with. That's my hypothesis.
Schrödinger's cat walks into a bar. And doesn't.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 690
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 690 |
Note that a statement was made in the first article that beginning education early would be beneficial for low SES children, not harmful.
So...lifting up the disadvantaged, and holding back the advantaged "bright" (this is making the assumption that much of intelligence stems from environment) makes a nice, tidy middle to teach.
Last edited by KADmom; 06/25/13 07:06 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 10
Junior Member
|
|
Junior Member
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 10 |
I don't think this suggests holding the advanced back. It's just saying that early reading skills do not indicate an early readiness for formalized teaching. And that pushing formal schooling too early can be psychologically damaging, even if a kid can keep up intellectually. Starting school at the normal age doesn't preclude advancement or enrichment later.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 5,181
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 5,181 |
Right, and without identifying what one means by "formal education" it doesn't provide meaningful data either way.
The other thing that I find curious about this article (that is, the original quoted); there is a globalization of the findings, which clearly are about the Terman cohort.
Can one really generalize to "all children" from a relatively small sample of children with very high IQ?
Or is the author suggesting that both the study cohort AND the controls experienced the effect?
That part is not at all clear.
Schrödinger's cat walks into a bar. And doesn't.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 690
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 690 |
I don't think this suggests holding the advanced back. It's just saying that early reading skills do not indicate an early readiness for formalized teaching. And that pushing formal schooling too early can be psychologically damaging, even if a kid can keep up intellectually. Starting school at the normal age doesn't preclude advancement or enrichment later. Yes, I shouldn't have posted until I'd read the second article.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 5,181
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 5,181 |
Roehampton University’s Research Centre for Therapeutic Education has been on this particular bandwagon for almost a decade, by the way-- In 2006, for example: Children are poisoned by today's world, say experts. Childhood is being lost to a dangerous combination of junk food, marketing and video games, experts warned yesterday. A group of 110 teachers, psychologists, children's authors and other experts wrote to the Daily Telegraph urging the Government to act, warning children are being poisoned by the modern world.
The group includes children's laureate Jacqueline Wilson, novelist Philip Pullman, Baroness Susan Greenfield, director of the Royal Institution and child care expert Dr Penelope Leach.
They write, 'We are deeply concerned at the escalating incidence of childhood depression and children's behavioural and developmental conditions.
'Since children's brains are still developing, they cannot adjust as full-grown adults can, to the effects of ever more rapid technological and cultural change.
'They need what developing human beings have always needed, including real food (as opposed to processed 'junk'), real play (as opposed to sedentary, screen based entertainment), first hand experience of the world they live in and regular interaction with the real-life significant adults in their lives.
'They also need time. In a fast-moving, hyper-competitive culture, today's children are expected to cope with an ever-earlier start to formal schoolwork and an overly academic test-driven primary curriculum.'
It concludes by calling for a public debate on child-rearing in the 21st century.
The letter was circulated by Sue Palmer, a former head teacher and author of the book Toxic Childhood, and Dr Richard House, senior lecturer at the Research Centre for Therapeutic Education at Roehampton University.
Schrödinger's cat walks into a bar. And doesn't.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 690
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 690 |
Roehampton University’s Research Centre for Therapeutic Education has been on this particular bandwagon for almost a decade, by the way-- In 2006, for example: Children are poisoned by today's world, say experts. Childhood is being lost to a dangerous combination of junk food, marketing and video games, experts warned yesterday. A group of 110 teachers, psychologists, children's authors and other experts wrote to the Daily Telegraph urging the Government to act, warning children are being poisoned by the modern world.
The group includes children's laureate Jacqueline Wilson, novelist Philip Pullman, Baroness Susan Greenfield, director of the Royal Institution and child care expert Dr Penelope Leach.
They write, 'We are deeply concerned at the escalating incidence of childhood depression and children's behavioural and developmental conditions.
'Since children's brains are still developing, they cannot adjust as full-grown adults can, to the effects of ever more rapid technological and cultural change.
'They need what developing human beings have always needed, including real food (as opposed to processed 'junk'), real play (as opposed to sedentary, screen based entertainment), first hand experience of the world they live in and regular interaction with the real-life significant adults in their lives.
'They also need time. In a fast-moving, hyper-competitive culture, today's children are expected to cope with an ever-earlier start to formal schoolwork and an overly academic test-driven primary curriculum.'
It concludes by calling for a public debate on child-rearing in the 21st century.
The letter was circulated by Sue Palmer, a former head teacher and author of the book Toxic Childhood, and Dr Richard House, senior lecturer at the Research Centre for Therapeutic Education at Roehampton University. And I heard this the other day on NPR: http://www.npr.org/2010/12/20/132077565/video-games-boost-brain-power-multitasking-skillsI'm not entirely sure about the study...and the comments, well, some of them are pretty awful.
Last edited by KADmom; 06/25/13 07:48 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 5,181
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 5,181 |
One of the fundamental difficulties that I have with this kind of research (and this would include BOTH sides of this particular question)-- is that it all seems to rely upon cherry-picking meta-studies which go about FINDING the data needed to support particular claims. It's fairly clear that whatever was going on in classrooms in 1940 is probably not analogous to what is going on in them in 2005-- or it should be obvious, at any rate-- so making comparisons between today's parenting and educational practices and the Terman cohort should probably be done only with a lot of caveats and accounting for cultural shift in the intervening period. On the other side, there are frequently such shoddy practices at defining what is meant by "cognitive skills" in studies that seem to find a lot of benefit to 'screen time' that I have trouble believing that conclusion any more than the converse. Not to be too cynical, here, but all too often, such studies are funded by those who stand to benefit significantly from one conclusion or another... Too many variables, not enough controls, and correlation fallacy galore. My fundamental beef over this is that the people spouting their conclusions for the edification of the media seem to be blissfully unaware that such practices even matter. 
Schrödinger's cat walks into a bar. And doesn't.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 690
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 690 |
It's fairly clear that whatever was going on in classrooms in 1940 is probably not analogous to what is going on in them in 2005-- or it should be obvious, at any rate-- so making comparisons between today's parenting and educational practices and the Terman cohort should probably be done only with a lot of caveats and accounting for cultural shift in the intervening period. This is precisely what came to mind after having finished reading the second linked article.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 2,856
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 2,856 |
I'm with HK on this one. The study doesn't show that early school entry and reading are bad for gifted kids so much as it shows that school is bad for gifted kids. Also, the Terman study is known to have enough issues due to selection criteria. Then Kern/Friedman made the problem worse by applying this: 2.2.1. Age of learning to read
In 1922, parents specified the age their child began to read (“Did your child learn to read before starting school? At what age?”). As the average student was almost twelve years old when first studied by Terman, the average time lag from age of reading to parental report was 5.94 years (SD = 2.91 years); this time lag introduces some unreliability and so any associations that emerge may underestimate the size of the true effect.
2.2.2. Age at school entry
In 1922, parents also noted the age and grade their child began attending school (“Age of entering school above kindergarten”) and whether or not the child attended kindergarten. School entry age indicates the participants’ age upon starting first grade. The average time lag between starting school and parental report was 5.97 years (SD = 2.79 years), which again introduces some unreliability that may underestimate true effect sizes. If the data upon which they're going to base any conclusions is unreliable, so then are the conclusions. Plus, when you ask a parent, "When did your child first begin to read?," this begs the question, "What do you mean by 'read'?" We've seen in our discussions here how we sometimes have different meanings of the term.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,478
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,478 |
It's always about the lens on these studies. So, I look at the data and am most interested in the bimodal verbal/math aspect. They toss it as an aside and don't even run it as a controlling variable. "However, early school entry was also related to mediocre math performance in 1922" Anecdotally, we often hear of the mathematically gifted kid not quite being "ready for school" as early as the more verbally oriented. Looking at part of table 3: Outcome Variable Early Entry (N = 394) On-Time Entry (N = 540) Late Entry (N = 89)
...
1922 verbal performance 3.35 (1.44) 3.30 (1.36) 3.09 (1.28)
1922 math performance 2.54 (1.06) 2.63 (1.01) 2.84 (1.01)
... What a pretty crossover.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,898
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,898 |
The weirdest thing was that "conscientious kids" had better outcomes than "cheerful kids". I would have thought the conscientious kids would be more likely to burn out. But I guess it depends on how they coded kids as conscientious vs cheerful. I haven't yet read any of the links (except for skimming the thread starter) but, while this is interesting, I don't personally find it weird at all. A conscientious kid is learning to work hard, whereas one who is cheerful but not conscientious may be learning that life is always going to be easy and pleasant. Going out on a limb (and it really is a shaky one...), I might suggest that conscientiousness might be correlated with having a growth mindset as opposed to a fixed mindset, and then (further out on the shaky branch) I would expect the former to be more conducive to long-term good outcomes. Come to think of it, it must be known how conscientiousness as a character trait measured in children who are not necessarily gifted correlates with long-term outcomes. It's not known by me and I don't have time to look it up right now, though!
Email: my username, followed by 2, at google's mail
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,689
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,689 |
Exercise was not mentioned per se, but when I read unhealthy, early death, I made the leap.
I also think of a childhood friend, PG, who was not encouraged to do sports or anything. MD at 21 or 22. Had nervous breakdown, socially isolated. His sister, PG, did other things like musical theater, those marching band competitions, rebelled against the father and has a relatively happy lifestyle with a PhD in nuclear engineering, sought after by the classified crowd for her brilliance. I think it is the extracurriculars, feeling like you a have a life outside the school.
Which brings in a side note, a bragging side note. We are moving from NYC to Toronto and DD got into the National ballet school...
Movers come Friday and I just finished my 3rd and last (for now) exam so I can go back to work. On derivatives.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 2,513
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 2,513 |
Movers come Friday and I just finished my 3rd and last (for now) exam so I can go back to work. On derivatives. CFA 3? And congrats to DD!
What is to give light must endure burning.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 690
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 690 |
Wren,
Congratulations to your DD!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 351
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 351 |
This is the first time I am seriously thinking about grade level skipping for DS6. Fewer years in school=good thing!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,689
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,689 |
I have had my CFA so long I didn't know there was a CFA 3? Or are you talking about the third CFA test?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 2,513
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 2,513 |
I have had my CFA so long I didn't know there was a CFA 3? Or are you talking about the third CFA test? Just the third exam; sorry for the ambiguity! 
What is to give light must endure burning.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,453
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,453 |
Interestingly, Finland pretty well beats everyone on Maths education and they don't even start school until 7 so perhaps there is something to be said for holding off on starting school.
The main issue that I see with the brighter kids, though, isn't the age at which they start school but rather their ability to learn faster than the norm. If this is not accommodated sub-optimal outcomes are likely.
I also think that the Terman's cohort's experience of school would have be so vastly different from a contemporary child's experience that the comparison between the two is meaningless.
Last edited by madeinuk; 06/25/13 08:01 PM.
Become what you are
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 429
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 429 |
Sending her to a school would turn her world upside down as sitting at a desk doing meaningless worksheets for hours each day would surely dampen her love of learning. ah... BTDT. if i'd known what Pre-K was going to do to DD5, i'd have kept her home, too. My method these days to maintain a balance is to keep her busy doing non-academic things throughout the day. She still reads and does mathy activities but that's her "down time" since she seems to find them relaxing. and this is what we're doing right now! i'm working (ha - that reminds me that i should get back to it!) and DD5 is in her room, listening to an audio book, building something she'll probably show me a few days from now. previous projects have included a cardboard space shuttle, a realistic drawing of Hogwarts castle and a paper ex vivo lung perfusion system, so between this stuff, books and the math games she loves... i think she's doing ok.
Every Sunday it brooded and lay on the floor. Inconveniently close to the drawing-room door.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,898
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,898 |
Come to think of it, it must be known how conscientiousness as a character trait measured in children who are not necessarily gifted correlates with long-term outcomes. It's not known by me and I don't have time to look it up right now, though! Here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8355139/is a paper saying that conscientiousness is correlated to long life, and cheerfulness to short, in the general population. As a hyperconscientious and not especially cheerful person, I guess I should be pleased :-)
Email: my username, followed by 2, at google's mail
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 5,181
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 5,181 |
Wouldn't that be out of character, though? Wonder what it means for me, since I'm hyperconscientious and fairly easily amused.
Schrödinger's cat walks into a bar. And doesn't.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,297
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,297 |
I'm with HK on this one. The study doesn't show that early school entry and reading are bad for gifted kids so much as it shows that school is bad for gifted kids. Going backward a bit here, but I agree with this statement. I would, though, qualify it by adding that typical schools are bad for gifted kids. My eldest went to a school aimed at gifties for a while and he didn't experience the angst that he went through the year after it closed. He got stuck at a local charter school because the giftie school had been purchased by a venture capitalist type and put through the Silicon Valley acquisition grinder. He's homeschooling now and is much happier again.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 429
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 429 |
DD5 is in her room, listening to an audio book, building something she'll probably show me a few days from now. previous projects have included a cardboard space shuttle, a realistic drawing of Hogwarts castle and a paper ex vivo lung perfusion system, so between this stuff, books and the math games she loves... i think she's doing ok. Wouldn't it be nice if schools can be a place where they can do all of those things with friends? Sigh. sigh, indeed... but - like the kid herself points out, no one is going to put her (at 5) in a (school) class full of 10 year olds. i'm so grateful for her dance and swimming classes... where they place kids based solely on ability/maturity, rather than age. it's so weird that the extra-curricular teachers just "get" her, especially when each of them only sees her an hour a week. and, not so strangely... it's in dance that she's found her real friends - they're quite a bit older than her but it really doesn't matter to them one bit.
Last edited by doubtfulguest; 06/27/13 07:15 AM. Reason: some degree of clarity
Every Sunday it brooded and lay on the floor. Inconveniently close to the drawing-room door.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,428
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,428 |
ZOMG ZOMG.
I work in this field and I would be laughed out of the PARK for suggesting that this data would be applicable to today's children. WAY. TOO. OLD.
Just, really...forget you even read this!
|
|
|
|
|
