Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums General Discussion Gifted teacher ideology sound check

I'll throw in my two cents worth on our experience, in the same school system from which your teacher comes, Aquinas. Others have already addressed the substantial body of evidence which does not support the anti-acceleration stance, so I would comment just on the daily reality of living with our province's curriculum, and why teachers seem so resistant to evidence.

Our province and school boards have drunk the kool-aid by the gallon when it comes to truly, honestly, deeply believing that acceleration it is bad for kids. For many, it's not that they are unaware, but rather that they have been taught, with great effort, care and repetition, to fundamentally reject acceleration and all it stands for. Congregated gifted classrooms explicitly do not accelerate or compact in our board, and policy adamantly states that they must do only the normal, grade-level curriculum, though they are allowed to go wider.

Our teachers and principals are truly bewildered when you suggest there is ample evidence for acceleration, and will gently correct you and assure you that the Board/ provincial research PROVES it is bad for children. They will pat you on the head and suggest that you look at *real* research, and not be swayed by a few outlier opinions of extremists. They as teachers and policy makers have tons of experience with acceleration from the days of my youth, and they know for a fact - for a FACT, I tell you - that it is bad for children. Bad, bad, bad.

They are genuine, and truly believe they are doing the best for the kids and - this is critical to understand - saving them from pushy, hot-housing parents. Every word you say, every document you provide, simply reinforces their belief that they must protect this child from your pushing them into an inappropriate situation that will damage the child's self-esteem and social life. The more you attempt to discuss the evidence for acceleration, the more you simply prove their point and strengthen their need to protect the child - from *you*. Maintenance doses of kool-aid are daily slipped into the coffee urn in the teacher's lounge to ensure continued adherence to orthodoxy. Any attempt to provide contrary research is usually refused - gently but politely - because your stuff is fringe and they have *real* evidence from school board experience that acceleration is bad for kids. Don't even think about trying to provide a copy of "A Nation Deceived" - the very title sets their fur on edge and sounds extremist.

Ah - I sound a bit disillusioned this morning, don't I? Pardon the grumpiness.

As for the idea that the science curriculum is cumulative, bah. The sum total of elementary school science could be covered in an afternoon. With a tobogganing break. There is very little science, and what there is tends towards the softer sciences - primarily plant biology and environmental issues. And it's almost entirely about learning lists of facts. DD8 is losing her mind after 6 months spent still memorizing the parts of plants. DS10 is now studying - oh look, it's plants again. In alternate years, we’ll talk about environmental stuff - that means we memorize the carbon cycle - of plants. DS is very into the hard sciences: physics, engineering, computers, math. The sad reality is that even in the early grades of elementary school, it was clear that the first time he is likely to see science that is remotely interesting, even mildly conceptual or explorative, and taught at a depth/ level to have some meaning, will be in high school. That's an awfully long time to wait, and way too much time spent learning that science is excruciatingly boring and irrelevant.

And sadly, I have no doubt that were kids like these put into ANY kind of high school science course in our province right now, the amount of time needed to backfill any info they might have missed in middle school would be minimal. We aren't there yet, so perhaps I unduly disparage the middle-school curriculum.

But I doubt it.

So to say that grade-level courses can be taught with enrichment is more than a bit disingenuous. Of course you could be teaching extraordinarily cool things about plant biology to 6-10 year-olds. I have been talking about all sorts of examples with DD, to try and undo the damage and hatred of the subject caused by the school curriculum. But other than focusing on the same branch of science, there would be absolutely no resemblance between the two courses.

I should add: there are occasional rare gems in our school system, who actually love science (instead of being afraid of it), who have great knowledge of science, and who love teaching things to young children even when they themselves may not know as much to start as the children end up discovering on a particular topic. It is possible to learn some extraordinary science in some classrooms with these extraordinary teachers. But it's because they toss the curriculum out the window and actually teach *science*. And even more importantly, they convey their love of science and discovery.

Sorry Aquinas - your posts about policy do keep pushing all my buttons, don’t they?! I don’t usually get this cynical and grumpy in real life! Well, OK, mostly.

ETA: Sorry about giant soap box rant! But appreciate having a place to let it all out. House full of in-laws, have almost bit my tongue right off, need an outlet...