Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums Learning Environments Homework

LOL. Well, of course I don't mean that it is literally the same four problems. Just metaphorically; that it's the same basic concept/application done to death with a more-is-better, we'll-bash-this-concept-into-submission-by-brute-force approach...

I mean, if my daughter can demonstrate mastery with four multi-step problems that incorporate all of the four concepts in the lesson, then why, oh WHY does she really need to do ten of each single-step type?

That's just drill-and-kill and it serves no purpose other than to teach my child to loathe and dread the subject itself.

I really like the description of the two-fold nature of outside of class activities. That sums it up beautifully, and I think it highlights immediately why "radical acceleration" and a lot of not-truly-differentiated GT programs fail HG+ kids in all their asynchronous glory. Teaching "responsibility" to a fourteen year old looks dramatically different (from a developmental stance) than doing so with a seven year old. WAY different executive skills readiness at work there, just for starters. That 14yo is capable of seeing "yes, I just need to get this done and then I can do what I want" whereas the 7yo may simply not be capable of "forcing themselves" to do the work if it is obviously redundant and unnecessary.

We've seen this play out time and time again with DD. It's ultimately a fit issue that dictates changes in placement as much as purely cognitive needs do.

There will be many changes when I am made ruler of the known universe. Alas, this does not seem to be imminent.

YES to this. It can become increasingly apparent that this is so when a child has an inappropriate placement in undifferentiated curriculum year after year.

BTDT, currently living it. It's difficult to convince educators that "100%" should not be a goal for some learners-- particularly not those for whom it is a somewhat realistic target. Students like that need to be in curriculum that either moves away from a criterion-based or norm-referenced assessment scheme entirely, or needs to be placed into a situation in which 100% is pretty much ONLY achievable through good luck in combination with top performance, and therefore seldom realistic and merely a pleasant surprise when it DOES happen. Alternatively, assessment can be based on crystal clear curricular goals and stellar writing of assessments, so that the level of effort necessary to earn "perfection" is clear and consistent. (Yeah, I know-- I had trouble not laughing, there, too. Never going to happen.)

Otherwise it leads to completely out of control perfectionism, especially in students who have a penchant for high achievement and recognition, or in those students whom adults have placed obviously high expectations on.



It's very hard not to praise kids for perfect scores, even when we know that the effort required is not always proportional.

Same here!

Although I can see the benefit of not having your child do alot of repetitive homework they already know, I do have my kids do it. I think that some of life is doing things that you already know, even if it's easy. How about most jobs that people have? Even stimulating jobs have parts that are dull or repetitive.

Yes, and we do promote that, within reason and where it is actually developmentally appropriate.

An analogy that I like here is to consider the benefits of teaching a child to "wait your turn."

Suppose that the "wait" in question is a line that is an hour long, with dozens of people in line ahead of us. Well, that might be a perfectly appropriate thing with a seven year old (well, some seven year olds, anyway-- mine would have been fine with that), and well within age norms for a child of 10 or older. Not so much with a two year old, no matter how appropriate the activity/event itself might be at the end of that wait.

In that instance, it would be much more appropriate for that asynchronous child for parents (or a group of adults) to tag-team and hold a spot in the line, so that the 2yo wouldn't be stuck there continuously, but rather get to 'practice' that waiting skill in shorter bursts (10 min, not 60).

I hope that makes sense. It's not that the wait is "wrong." It is what it is, and yes, the real world requires us to adjust to it, and not the other way around. But it also isn't possible for the 2yo to learn patience from that particular exercise, just in general terms.

I'd also argue that it flatly isn't possible for most 8yo to learn the value of 'just do it' when they knew perfectly well how to do two hours of math homework for precalc when they started the evening.

Our school gives no homework per se up until 4th or 5th grade. With that being said, they do ask that we spend 15 minutes a night reading (Kindergarten) and his 2nd grade class actually asks for 30 minutes a night reading. DS reads stuff ALL THE TIME so I don't usually worry about making sure that he puts the time in every night. Some nights he may read for 2 hours and others not at all. Either way, his reading level has increased a full grade level in 3 months so I'm not too concerned. DS does also occasionally get a little bit of math to finish up because the 2nd grade class does math for 90 minutes every day but he is only in the class for 60 minutes of it. He is keeping up just fine and supplementing on his own by learning multiplication, division, negative numbers, and roman numerals at home. Usually if he does bring anything home he has it done before I pick him up from daycare.

Wow...um...yeah, this is true, isn't it.

Says the mom whose kid gets 100%s on everything (but, but, this year the 100s are harder earned, at least).