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

HA. Oh, well, sure... it's a nice idea. But I've been trying this for over two decades at this point, and I'm not seeing much change. DH says he is equally frustrated, by the way. He says I have such wasted potential, too... if only I could learn to do things HIS way.



LOL.

I think in a lot of cases attitudes toward learning are more about educational background than money. I know plenty of people who are relatively financially disadvantaged but not worried about their next meal or the basics, still very uninvolved in their children's education. You probably won't check out a book about dinosaurs if it means telling your child you don't know how to pronounce the names. If you didn't go to college, your science and history background in certain areas might be inaccurate. You can't pass on knowledge you don't have and as long as schools are trying to determine in advance what kids are and aren't capable of and limiting kids or having lower expectations based on assumptions shaped by home environment, the kids are screwed.

At the end of the day maybe it doesn't matter why some kids are ahead and other are behind at any given point in time because differences are probably more often about environment than ability. I think the only assumption should be that in the absence of a learning disability all kids should be able to learn whatever material is logically next in line after their current achievement level.

I disagree. Ability plays a huge role in what people can accomplish. Yes, environment is important, too, but it isn't the critical factor that ability is. All the art lessons and encouragement in the world won't turn me into a professional artist. I simply don't have the ability.

Perhaps I misunderstood you, but it's kind of frustrating when people dismiss the importance of talent as though achievement is an either/or proposition. It's complicated.

Why are any of us here, if not for the cognitive talent our children have?

Sure, at the Ph.D. level talent matters but when we are talking about grade school kids learning grade school level math, I really think most kids are have "talent". When we talk about learning to read, most kids have "talent". Most kids have the talent necessary to learn basic science concepts. Even if a kid needs extra help she still has the ability to learn. Many kids aren't getting the basics and then grow up to be adults who can't help their children learn the basics, and I think part of the problem is people judging small kids as incapable or less capable based on nothing more than the fact that they are starting out behind.

*I don't think that kids are are equal in terms of speed at which they learn if raised in the same environment, I'm saying that 1.) kids aren't raised in the same environments so it's not reasonable to assume the child who is behind is a slower learner and even if they are a slower learning 2.) we shouldn't try to limit kids' potentials based on speed at which they learn. We have long life spans.

Ability plays a huge role in what people can accomplish.

This. Yes.

And this is, ultimately, why such achievement gaps (which are evidently the result of environmental factors and NOT actual ability) really matter.

Because if we're optimizing opportunities for only SOME people, that means that we are not getting the same proportion of people who are capable of truly remarkable, great things. We're leaving some of those people behind.

It worries me that we're seeming to prefer the appearance of the thing rather than the authentic thing here, too-- which is where we get when we focus on all of this testing, testing, testing. We are selecting for people who are naturally, or have been endlessly groomed for, being good at tests. Not sure that we're selecting for truly great things...

I love Aquinas' quote. So true. So much of potential needs to be noticed, named and called forth. Yes, there are those who just succeed... but many more who wouldn't.

I think I feel strongly about this general issue for just this reason. Navigating the school system this year for DS's kindergarten year has been exhausting. It took until March before anyone really noticed what I had been trying to point out in helpful, non-aggressive ways. It takes time and energy... which has heightened my awareness of what this must be like for all sorts of parents whose kids need special programs/plans/accommodations.

I have the education, time and confidence to persist. (Like when the one teacher pointed out that if he could read fluently upside down and in a mirror that it had nothing to do with him being an unusual learner and more to do with future vision problems he would likely develop. Huh?) I have the luxury of being in a position to homeschool, if need be. I suppose what I most desire as I advocate is for systems to be changed, so that it is more about paving the way for any child and not just my child. That the schools are more aware of the outliers on DS' end of the curve, while being more responsive for the unanticipated needs of all kids, wherever they are on the curve, whatever the capacity of their families to serve as advocates or even good parents... gifted or not, all remarkable in their own way, all deserving of being noticed and well-nurtured.

Amen!

I think a large fraction of the population is not smart enough to master the curriculum of an academic high school. In math that would mean getting through Algebra 2.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/29/opinion/sunday/is-algebra-necessary.html
Is Algebra Necessary?
By ANDREW HACKER
New York Times
July 28, 2012


A substantial fraction of the population cannot use arithmetic to solve simple problems and does not meet the standard one would expect of a junior high school graduate.

Charles Murray's book "Real Education" (p36, can be read on Google books) mentions the results for the following 8th grade NAEP question.

Only 36.5% of 8th-graders got the correct answer, D. Bright people tend to associate with other bright people (and nowadays, marry them), and I think some have an unrealistic idea of what an IQ of 85 or 100 means.

Just because a large number of students don't get the answer right on questions like this doesn't mean they can't learn to do so. Are their answers wrong because they really aren't capable of learning the material, because teachers aren't doing a good enough job teaching, do they just need more time, do their brains need to be a little more developed than they are at age 13?