Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums General Discussion NYT opinion: No (rich) child left behind

[The Oxford dictionary defines talent as natural aptitude or skill.]

Honestly? I think it's unfair to assume talent where it doesn't exist. A student who consistently struggles with a particular subject doesn't have natural aptitude for it. I have no talent for drawing. I can't do it, and I get annoyed when people tell me that Method X will work and I just have to try!! It's okay. I have other capabilities, just like everyone else.

IMO, it's especially unfair to a child with low math ability to tell him that he's got "talent" for math when he clearly doesn't. This approach leads students into deep debt while they spend time (unsuccessfully) in college majors that they don't have aptitude for. I also think this idea lets people find other explanations for what are basically uncomfortable ideas that have a lot of data to back them up. For example, a recent study in Stanford found physical differences in the brains of children with different abilities at learning math.

Also, I think that it's pretty easy to forget how hard long division can be for many or most nine-year-olds. And it's not just a question of learning it more slowly. There is also the unfortunate fact that some people forget stuff more quickly than others.

IMO, the idea that everyone can have "talent" at math makes things worse, both for slower learners (who get pushed too hard) and faster learners (who are forced to work below their ability levels).

Yes, I agree that the schools often fall short and that home environments are suboptimal in many cases. ETA: And yes, I agree that most children can learn elementary school-level math. But these facts are all facets of a complex problem, and there's no sole or even simple explanation.