Letter to the Editor - Gifted Issues Discussion Forum

This letter to the editor got me going this morning.

Quote

For our badly needed education reform, we could try methods used in some other countries. Pre-K and K-students' interest should be targeted away from themselves by awakening their appreciation for creativity in nature's flora and fauna. Teachers should emphasize social values: how to behave, develop altruistic feelings and interdependence with others.

All competition should be avoided. At this early age (Pre-K and K) IQ and other tests are not valid.

When children start elementary school the students and their parents should be informed that normal mental development, like physical growth, varies extensively. Students should not be categorized according to speed of learning.

Nothing we know can change the genetic code of an individual. It dictates a child's speed of growth and learning. How could we conclude that the child is inadequate if his/her genetically programmed development is chronologically slow?

Jack P. Shonkoff at Harvard's Center on the Developing Child has found in his research a threefold difference in expressive vocabulary by the age of 3. Research in Europe has shown that the genetic equality to learn can spread over 15 to 25 years.

Teaching should concentrate on the slow students and the so called "gifted" could assist the teachers with the slower classmates. The slower students can catch and even surpass the faster students, if given enough time.

Pentti Teraslinna
Lexington

After I calm down, I'm going to work on a response to the off base conclusions. I'm open to suggestions.

OK that is just unbelieveable. "The slower students can catch and even surpass the faster students, if given enough time." - yes, especially when the faster students are being held back.

What was the letter in response to?

I'm glad you are going to write a response. People have all kind of uninformed opinions, it is annoying when they assert something so totally obscene towards our "so called" kids.

I'm a firm believer that people are entitled to their opinions, even when the opinions are clearly not based in reality.

I think they have medicine for that.................hmmmm.......

Argh! So...many...arguments...Cannot...even...respond...

What does this

Originally Posted by annoying letter writer

Research in Europe has shown that the genetic equality to learn can spread over 15 to 25 years.

even mean?

Originally Posted by Kriston

What does this

Originally Posted by annoying letter writer

Research in Europe has shown that the genetic equality to learn can spread over 15 to 25 years.

even mean?

Lysenkoism - the idea that acquired traits can become genetically encoded. Its still prevalent in some Leninist-Marxist writings, which the author seems to have read uncritically.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism

"It is often suggested that Lysenko's success came solely from the desire in the USSR to assert that heredity had only a limited role in human development; that future generations, living under socialism, would be purged of their 'bourgeois' or 'fascist' instincts."

I am not trying to get political here, but want to try to shed some light on the author's thought processes. It seems the author wants to deny human nature.

Originally Posted by master of none

PS. If genetic code dictates speed of growth and learning, why do we even need schools? Genetics should handle it all.

On the one hand the superiority of some students is denied. ( "All kids can catch up.") Then the supposed basis (in their mind) for its manifestation (genetics) is validated. ( "Its all genetics." ) The role of the child's innate desires is lost by reducing the argument to a social or material level.

This is a pretty complex bait and switch tactic. Each (false) argument is a ball of string for the mind's cat's eye. The yarn is to be chased without regard for whether than yarn should chased!!!

Nowhere is the right of the child to learn at their own pace discussed because the child does not matter. There are other goals that are more important.

That does help. Thanks, Austin. It made absolutely no sense to me as written.

It still doesn't, actually, but at least I know why not...

Originally Posted by Austin

This is a pretty complex bait and switch tactic. Each (false) argument is a ball of string for the mind's cat's eye. The yarn is to be chased without regard for whether than yarn should chased!!!

Agreed. This is why I didn't even know where to begin to tear it apart. There's so much wrong, and in so many different ways, it's hard to know where to start! It's just overwhelmingly awful!

Anyone else think English might not be the first language, too? I'm wondering if there's some language barrier that's making it harder to follow the thread there.

I found this from back in July and it seems he's writing in response to the push for pre-K programs in our state. This letter includes more derision of gifted programs.

Quote

Right way to teach

I was really surprised to learn from the Herald-Leader that �the state is recruiting pre-K advocates to strengthen goals of education.� Educators say, �Pre-K programs can improve the state�s work force and save tax dollars.� Pre-K diplomas were awarded to 3- and 4-year-olds. The owner of Shaw�s child care in Lexington says: �We teach them Spanish, sign language, they get their sounds down, we have them reading ready.� A child cannot learn reading before adequate language skills and vocabulary.

That means not just memorizing hundreds of words but how these words relate to thought.

Compare this to the nation that is leading in educational progress among the tested world�s 57 countries. In Finland, children start elementary school at age 7. The schools have no honor societies and no classes for the so-called gifted. They have no marching bands, proms or valedictorians, and they have no organized competitive sports programs. Physical education, arts and music are included in the curriculum. At 9, they start a foreign language and at 11, a second foreign language. By ninth grade, students have achieved 100 percent literacy and are way ahead in math, science and reading. Daily homework takes 30 to 60 minutes.

All teachers have master�s degrees in their teaching specialty. They also have to show competency in the extremely important heterogeneity in child development and learning.

This basic pragmatic approach in education has achieved the desired results.

Pentti Teraslinna Lexington

I'm thinking about including this in my response. It's about special needs education in the Finland.

Quote

Children whose development according to experts in education and pupil welfare services and parents or other guardians, involves risk factors related to learning potential, shall also be entitled to special support.

It's been pretty well documented that gifted children have risk factors related to learning potential - learned underachievement and unhealthy perfectionism.

This was interesting as it relates to Finland having "no gifted classes."

Quote

Unfortunately, The Wall Street Journal notes several times in the article that there are no gifted classes in Finland. This is misleading. There aren't "pull-out" type classes featuring Robin Hood, bugs, Egyptology, the culture of Japan, etc. But according to this report of gifted education in Europe, Finnish parents have the right to enroll their children in school early if they want. Many of the elementary schools are ungraded, which allows children to accelerate.

Quote

But here's what I think is the key point, from the WSJ and my other reading: The education culture in Finland is one of excellence and intense individualization. Finnish teachers are expected to customize lessons for students. As the WSJ quotes one education expert saying, "In most countries, education feels like a car factory. In Finland, the teachers are the entrepreneurs." And they are good entrepreneurs. In Finland, teachers are trained extensively. They must have master's degrees, and 40 people apply for every job. They earn about the same as their American counterparts. But, through treating teachers like professionals, and only choosing the best, Finland has managed to get an excellent teaching corps capable of individualizing lessons for slow learners and quick learners alike.

Another note: Finland spends less per student than the U.S. does.

Unfortunately, I worry that people reading the WSJ article and looking to take away ideas for educational improvement in the US will only seize on the "no gifted classes" idea. That would be a shame. In an environment where the teachers are uniformly excellent, where individual lessons are customized and where acceleration is possible, you don't necessarily need specific gifted classes. But I don't see many American education reform efforts combining all these elements yet.

http://giftedexchange.blogspot.com/2008/02/what-makes-finnish-kids-so-smart.html

Thanks, Inky!!

As to his assertion that "at this early age IQ and other tests are not valid."

Quote

Appropriate Age for IQ Testing
By Inderbir Kaur Sandhu, Ph.D
It is generally recommended that IQ testing for gifted children be done between age 5 and 12. Beyond 12, even the moderately gifted child is likely to encounter test ceiling effects. For the highly or profoundly gifted child, ceiling effects are in place on many measures which may begin as young as 8 (including the supplemental Stanford-Binet L-M). Research shows that for the average child, IQ test scores are reliable around age 8.

Exactly!!!!

I want to address this last part

Quote

Teaching should concentrate on the slow students and the so called "gifted" could assist the teachers with the slower classmates. The slower students can catch and even surpass the faster students, if given enough time.

How does this sound?

This is in essence saying that we should choose to educate some students and not others. It�s asking a student to do the teacher�s job, a job we require teachers to spend a number of years training for. We need to find ways to support at risk students that don't involve sacrificing another child's learning potential in the process. It is not okay to sacrifice any child's learning potential.

I am shaking my head, but cannot find the words to say how ridiculous this is...

Exactly, Inky. The first sentence in your quote from the original letter is the part that bothered me the most. Not only is one sacrificing the child's learning potential, one is also sacrificing on the altar of one's political agenda the child's chance at having real friendships with others in his or her class. The child who substitutes for/assists in a teaching capacity the teacher is never going to be treated as an equal by the other children.

minnie

To ask a child to go to school to "teach" other children instead of learning themselves, then ask them to assist an adult to perform a job meant for adults is clearly morally reprehensible and abusive.

I wonder if the person who has written the letter has ever read The Jungle by Upton Sinclair.

The assertion that it is okay to put children to work is deeply chilling, to say the least.

Yes, Inky. It sounds very good.

As for education in Finland, heck, I can totally get behind a 100% individualized learning program! Yes, let's do that! (But not at all because of why the letter-writer says to...)

What...why... Okay: though the author of the letter put it all together in one form that sent sparks flying towards the computer of everyone that read this thread today; are we really taken back? I know we have heard all of these arguments before and sadly most from the professionals that teach our kids. (Just pointing out the obvious and besides I was not on earlier to jump in with my comments and I would be duplicating A LOT)

And Master of none: Thank goodness I was not drinking liquid at the time I read your post b/c it would have been all over my laptop. Thank you for your post and especially the famous 3rd grade reference!

Yep, I was taken aback. But why?

Probably because the letter reinforces misconceptions that we are working hard to change. Hopefully the attached response can undo some of the damage. I'm open to further suggestions and editing. Keep in mind it was difficult to say all I wanted with the paper's 250 word limit. Thank you also for everyone's earlier feedback. It helped me go from this

to

While sharing many of Pentti Teraslinna�s concerns regarding the need for education reform, I vehemently disagree with his statements that reinforce misconceptions about gifted education.

One misconception is that early age IQ and other tests are not valid. Inderbir Kaur Sandhu at Cambridge recommends IQ testing for gifted children be done between age 5 and 12. This is because ceiling effects are in place which may begin as young as 8 for the gifted child.

Mr. Teraslinna stated that teaching should concentrate on the slow students and the so-called �gifted� could assist the teachers with the slower classmates. In essence, this is saying we should choose to educate some students and not others. Instead, we must find ways to support students that don't involve sacrificing another child's learning potential in the process. We need to value each child�s continued growth whether their learning capacity is �inconveniently� fast or slow for our schools.

For this, I applaud those at Dixie Elementary who are working to feed intellectual growth whether or not that child already meets state benchmarks. By taking a seventh grade virtual math class, an 11-year old gifted math student is learning something new instead of getting more practice with 5th grade concepts she mastered long ago. Dixie�s leadership is taking a stance by figuring out what's best for each learner and providing it. This is the type of leadership necessary to close the most important student achievement gap, the gap between their potential and what is asked of them.

Inky, I think that is a fine response.
Do you know anything about that guy? Do a google search on his name, 'Pentti Teraslinna', I doubt there are very many people with that name.

Yes I like your response Inky!

Well said!

Nice!

Might I suggest saying "A lot of experts, such as Inderbir Kaur Sandhu at Cambridge, recommend..." in order to make it clear that it isn't just one random nut who thinks early testing is a good idea?

Feel free to ignore me!

Thanks again for the feedback. I incorporated Kriston�s suggestion and sent the letter to the paper.

OHGrandma, it looks like he�s an Emeritus Professor in the College of Education.

This may be part of the reason I haven�t been able to find any programs or services for gifted children at UK. The nearest programs are an hour and a half north at University of Cincinnati.

Oh, man, that makes it SO much worse!

The letter to the editor ran in today's paper. You can see it at the end of the web page and it's titled "Value Each Student." No comments or burning bags of poo on our front doorstep...yet.

http://www.kentucky.com/595/story/648917.html

Originally Posted by inky

The letter to the editor ran in today's paper. You can see it at the end of the web page and it's titled "Value Each Student." No comments or burning bags of poo on our front doorstep...yet.

http://www.kentucky.com/595/story/648917.html

Great letter inky! I especially like your closing: "This is the type of leadership necessary to close the most important student achievement gap, the gap between their potential and what is asked of them."

You go, girl! Nicely done!