Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums THINKING BIG About Gifted Education Proposal: NASA Academy of the Physical Sciences

AlexsMom,

Two things.

First thing: An excellent article titled "The Dark Side of Perfectionism Revealed" appeared on the Internet yesterday. It can be found at:
http://www.livescience.com/health/perfectionism-health-100711.html

Perfectionism is a potentially destructive characteristic that is common among many gifted children � and, worse, the characteristic is also common among the parents of many gifted children, which can create a terrible double whammy for a gifted child. My oldest daughter had it bad for a long while, but was finally liberated from it when she received less than an "A" grade in Calculus at the end of high school. I was so relieved when it happened, because I knew my daughter would be blessed to learn that her world would not end if she was not always a straight "A" student � and she was blessed. She learned that her genuine interest in a particular subject matter was more important than her excelling in all subject matters, and this allowed her to focus her efforts toward her own interests during her undergraduate years. She became much more selfish in her academic efforts by concentrating her learning on what was useful for her own personal goals rather than on what the teaching goals of a professor might have been, and I consider that to be a hard-won victory in gaining intellectual maturity. Finally, when your life, your mind, and your curiosity are your own, you are no longer the victim of the dictates of others, and you then become free to be yourself and to make your own contributions to the world. It is not easy to get there, and perfectionism is often a big obstacle along the way.

One goal of mine in designing NAPS was to put NASA Scholars into a learning environment where they will not always be the smartest people in the room, where an "A" grade will be an honest praiseworthy accomplishment, and where a "B" grade is something to be proud of if a best effort is made. NAPS accomplishes that goal.

Second thing: Accreditation is a beastly consideration in the world of education. It forces a norm, and it lives on accepted prerequisite streams. Measurable proficiency is a "must" accomplishment for a school, and understandably so. Always, being clever in a curriculum has its punishments, so cleverness is not encouraged. For example, as a third grader, my oldest daughter was placed in a third and fourth grade grouping where she immediately went to the top of the whole class in academic performance. Good for her throughout third grade, but what then when fourth grade happens? Well, her academic and social peers became fifth graders while she became a fourth grader, and the rest of the story becomes predictable after that.

NAPS concedes the prerequisite streams to the university accreditation process without any protest, because nothing is to be gained in fighting the system. If you choose to get fancy with a special curriculum at an out-of-the-ordinary school somewhere, your graduating students will be forced to submit to a proficiency exam that will then place them appropriately into the standard university system, and they will then start in that system where they are told to start � and that is the way it is.

NASA scholars will earn university credits on a university transcript that cannot be denied to them at a later time. The great curriculum at a special boarding school somewhere might in the end require a student to retake a class at a university because the high school class did not fully teach to the standard proficiencies required by the university prerequisite streams. Yes, I know it is crazy, but that is the way it is, and time is precious.

Steven A. Sylwester

News to me, maybe news to you, too.

The following linked article about NCAA athletic scholarships was published in The New York Times on March 10, 2008. It was written by Bill Pennington and is titled "Expectations Lose to Reality of Sports Scholarships."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/10/sports/10scholarships.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

If Pennington's article was made required reading for all eighth grade athletes and their parents, I wonder how the value placed on high school academics would change.

Steven A. Sylwester

Thanks for posting that article. It was eye opening! Nice to hear the NCAA president recommending families focus on academics and saying the best opportunity is to improve one's academic qualifications. Hope this reaches a wide audience.

In the picture of me at my blog you will notice a bird on my shoulder. That bird is Pretty Bird. I wrote about Pretty Bird in the following comment that I wrote to a commentary written by Dick Cavett titled "The Windows of the Soul Need Cleaning" that was published as an Opinionator column in The New York Times online edition on May 14, 2010. Cavett's commentary can be read at: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/14/the-windows-of-the-soul-need-cleaning/

My comment to Cavett is perhaps a fitting comment to some of you regarding my thoughts concerning biology. But please do not confuse the issue. I did not include Biology in the NAPS curriculum for one and only one reason: it did not fit in according to what I was trying to accomplish. That stated, my thoughts concerning biology might interest some of you anyway.

* * *

http://community.nytimes.com/commen...oul-need-cleaning/?permid=104#comment104

Comment #104
Steven A. Sylwester
Eugene, Oregon
May 15th, 2010
7:16 pm

Dick Cavett wrote: "Meltzer tied in with this the fascinating distinction between the thing that makes us human creatures unique: consciousness. Consciousness, that is, vs. awareness. A dog is not conscious. He is aware, but only we are conscious."

I spent my kindergarten through eighth grade years living in Seward, Nebraska, which is very near Lincoln where Cavett spent many of his formative years through high school. While Cavett had Baptist influences in his upbringing, I had Lutheran influences in mine. I understand the religion behind such a statement as Cavett's that separates humans from all other creatures through a distinction that only gives the trait of consciousness to humans, but I have come to a point of thinking differently about it all.

There is folly in separating living creatures through the distinction of consciousness, and a whole lot of arrogance, too � especially if we as humans do not know or in any way understand the expressive languages used by those other living creatures. My revelation � my consciousness raising � came as the result of living in my home with a free-flying cockatiel for the past 14 years. Pretty Bird is a creature with consciousness, and I state that with sincerity and conviction. My family and I have countless times witnessed firsthand the consciousness of Pretty Bird � and he has taught us much of his language along the way, even to the point of successfully devising bridges between our consciousness and his consciousness to achieve his purposes. And, remarkably, after he has devised a working bridge, he keeps using it with confidence, because he knows that he is communicating with us � his human flock.

The whole question of consciousness in living things exists at a global ecosystem level, too. Much of the global warming controversy unmasks an arrogance among scientists that gives no credibility to the intelligence and the consciousness of Planet Earth, because such a notion that a global ecosystem could have intelligence and consciousness is not easily measured and is simply preposterous by the current accepted premise, which is based on the linear thinking of evolution.

It seems to me that many scientists are alarmists concerning global warming.

Consider:
http://money.cnn.com/2009/05/14/magazines/fortune/globalwarming.fortune/index.htm
http://www.newsweek.com/2007/04/15/why-so-gloomy.html

I trust in Earth's mechanisms. Furthermore, I believe Earth is an intelligent ecosystem that naturally fluctuates through the means of self-correcting mechanisms between various extremes of climate and the consequent environmental results of those extremes. Most spectacularly, the self-correcting mechanisms are observable in polar ice formations, sea level changes, and volcanoes, and it is very probable that these three observable self-correcting mechanisms are absolutely and profoundly interrelated, and that they naturally trigger at the extreme points of the normal fluctuations of Earth's ecosystem.

If you believe in the haphazards of chance and luck, the opposing alarmist thinking is understandable. After all, the circularity of natural cycles is opposed to the linear requirements of the scientific thinking that is premised on evolution. Fortunately, "scientific thinking" does not require adherence or allegiance to the limited premises of some scientists, even if those "some" constitute a majority. In the end, if intelligence is observable sometimes somewhere in some life forms, then it must be present at all times everywhere in all life forms, including in the life forms known as ecosystems. That "intelligence" is not always visible to us and measurable by us does not determine whether or not intelligence exists. Ultimately, "intelligence" is inherent wherever there is life, and an ecosystem is teeming with life on the very grandest of grand scales.

In my thinking, "intelligence" is evident when deliberate coherent reactions occur in response to provoking actions. The presence of "intelligence" is not limited to life forms that have a presently recognized discernible brain. The world is not only a physical reality that is wholly dependent on known material substances and manifestations. If the world is not wholly material according to what is presently known, then "intelligence" also is not wholly material in its sources and/or in its observable origins.

The question then is this: Is what is unfolding in Nature best described as evolving change or as the revelation of what is and has been?

I vote for the latter.

That said, I am opposed to the unnecessary polluting of all land, air, and water environments and the unnecessary destruction of any natural environments, especially those that are still pristine. An abiding credo of the developed world should be an unwavering determined commitment to pollute less and less, to recycle more and more, to live in harmony with Nature and that which is natural, and to expect consciousness where intelligence can be observed.

* * *

Steven A. Sylwester

Why? What happened?

La Texican,

Think it through. In the case I described, the gifted third grader essentially skipped third grade academically because of the third/fourth grade grouping she was placed in. Furthermore, she excelled academically at the top of fourth grade while she was actually a third grader, and so she became part of the fourth grade "smart kids" peer group while she was a third grader. The following year, the gifted third grader became a fourth grader, and she was essentially held back a year in advancing one grade level because she had already completed fourth grade the previous year as a third grader.

As it played out, the gifted third grader � my daughter � became uncomfortably socially isolated as a fourth grader. She tried to compensate by actively dumbing down in order to fit in. In every way, she tried to submit to the group, and the group was being led by a devilish little girl who was very good at maintaining her sway, which at times meant being aggressively unkind to others. It was a bad situation that showed no hope for improvement.

I insisted to the local public school district that my daughter be allowed to skip sixth grade. As a general rule, my local public school district does not allow students to skip a grade, so the school district resisted me at every turn. I finally prevailed because I promised to accept all responsibility for the outcome if it turned out to be bad.

Well, for my daughter, skipping sixth grade turned out to be good in every way. She flourished as a result, both academically and socially � and she also became very self-confident in her own person. She became editor-in-chief of her high school student newspaper during December of her freshman year, and remained in that position for the remainder of her high school years. She graduated from high school at age 16 and earned a full-ride academic merit scholarship to the Robert Donald Clark Honors College at the University of Oregon, from which she graduated at age 20 after completing a double major. She finished writing her first novel at age 23, and could be a well-known writer before she reaches age 30.

Steven A. Sylwester

Did you mean "think it through", or did you really mean "use your imagination.". Because either way, no thanks. I'm much more interested in hearing the story of what really happened. I'm sure that's why I asked. Maybe by hearing the same thing won't happen to my children. So why would she not continue to the next grade level the next year? If she was telescoped or subject accelerated or whatever they call it one year why did they not do it again the next year? Did you switch schools? Did they come up with excuses? What reason did they give for such an unreasonable sounding decision? I mean I realize this was a decade ago so maybe things have changed, but maybe they haven't so I'd like to know. Especially since all the modern literature suggests accelerating gifted kids.

Well, I guess a lot of "good" ideas sound good during the talking stage, and then they sort of fall apart when the special circumstances arise. Surely, no one factored in someone as brilliant as my daughter coming along as a third grader to enter the third/fourth grade grouping when the grouping idea was first being considered, because there was no contingency plan in place at all to deal with my daughter as she entered fourth grade, except to give her separate work on the side at times, which only served to isolate her socially. As a parent, perhaps I should have insisted on an appropriate solution, but the only appropriate solution available was to have her skip a grade, which was eventually done after fifth grade.

La Texican, you are to be applauded for wanting to hear the story, but you must be prepared to "think it through" as you care for your own children during their K-12 years. Schools do not function according to "all the modern literature" regarding gifted kids; they function according to economic realities and best-for-most efficiencies. If any of your children are truly off-the-charts extraordinary as my daughter was, you are on your own to fight for whatever compromises you can fashion � and your compromises are likely to be measly and far from what you would rightly consider to be appropriate solutions.

To give you a reference point: At my insistence, our local school district tested my daughter's reading ability during her first month of first grade, and it was determined by that testing that she was then reading with comprehension at an adult level beyond high school level, and that her reading comprehension was full except for times when it was limited by her chronological age and consequent lack of life experiences.

I ask you: What do you do with a kid like that? Believe me, it was a never-ending challenge. Public schools are not prepared to deal with kids like my daughter, and so I advocated for her at every turn along the way to the best of my ability.

Regarding Talented & Gifted programs: We quit fighting the fight in early middle school, because the focus of the programs was all wrong � at least in our case. TAG was always something "in addition to" the standard curriculum, never something "instead of" the standard curriculum. Our daughter did not need extra work; she needed appropriate work.

The local school district advised us to place our daughter in the district's Japanese Immersion School, because that was the most challenging program they had. And so we did so. She entered that program in second grade, and was almost immediately up to speed with all of her classmates who had been in the program since kindergarten. Her second grade Japanese teacher labeled our daughter a genius during our first parent/teacher conference. In fact, the teacher commented that she had never before encountered a student who could flawlessly learn Japanese at first hearing as our daughter could, and that teacher's long career included teaching at all levels from kindergarten through the highest university levels. It made no sense to even consider moving our daughter to another school, because she was already in the most challenging program that was available.

La Texican, ultimately it gets down to you doing the best you can do for your own children. So do continue asking to hear the stories of others, but do also think it through in your own special case, because quite probably you might be the only person who cares enough to think it through. God bless teachers, but teaching is a job for most of them � and that is not an unreasonable reality, even when your own children are involved.

Steven A. Sylwester

I obviously can't speak for what happened to Steven's daughter, but I can tell you about my own experiences and my own opinions.

To avoid a big segue, I started a new thread here.

Val

I hope I don't double-post. I thought I posted this reply before I cooked dinner, but it looks like I didn't. I hit my browser back button until I found it, so at least I didn't have to think up the whole reply again (plus I re-read it and cut out the extra verbiage for to make it more concise:)
I can kind of understand that, especially a decade ago. The only thing to do with a gifted kid back then was fast-forward her completely past her childhood, like that 11 yr. old boy in revenge of the nerds. But the long-term outcome of that would be too novel, so therefore viewed as a huge gamble.
I think the Internet is what's opening the doors for better education of the gifted kids these days. Parents are talking for the first time in history, parents are learning about the options and seeing real-life stories of what's working and in what cases.

A thought on your project- (can't really comment on your cirriculum) but I disagree that there's any ethical dilemma with diverting NASA funds "covertly" to a highschool. It wouldn't be taken out of NASA's education fund though, that's more for public awareness programs, especially aimed at minorities and the underpriviledged (according to their website). It would be more like certain jobs I've heard stories about that will help pay for job-related college for current and future employees. This would just be NASA starting them younger to make sure they get pick of the litter. But, if that's the case, you ought to be bouncing ideas off a NASA human resources person to refine your cirriculum because the school would be less interested in offering random classes that might interest gifted students and more geared towards "vocational education" if I can use such a term for a lofty career. Then it wouldn't really be "covertly" or re-directing funds, it would go in the same part of a business report that other companies pay for college/continuing education for their employees and future employees.
I know, I muddling up two topics here. But I'm here as a parent for one conversation and had an idea for your project on the other topic