Education
Monday on the Today Show, some guest was talking about her program to tutor 4 year olds so they would be ready for kindergarten. The segment was the classic argument about how to educate children. One point of view was to pump little minds full of facts and expose them to the world ASAP. The other point of view says you cannot rush development. Children learn better if it comes through discovery and exploration, and too much emphasis on education only puts pressure on them and sours them on learning in the long run.
If you cannot guess my point of view, it is the latter of the two. I have seen it with my own son. There were tasks I tried unsuccessfully to teach him. I got aggravated and aggravated him, then it seemed, overnight he would just start doing it. I realized that just because a three year old could tie a shoe does not make a 5 year old who cannot tie a shoe a moron. By age 10 everyone can tie their shoes, even kids who do not have arms. This is an example of development and how you cannot rush it.
We all develop at our own pace. We develop physically, emotionally, socially, spiritually, intellectually, and in many other ways. The teens who develop physically, but lag mentally are the stereotypical dumb jock. The scrawny smart kid is the classic nerd. By age 20 or so, things begin to level off.
Back to my rant, these days and for some time, children are segregated. Not racially, that would be bad, but, so-called gifted children are pulled out of regular classes along with behavior disordered and learning disabled. They all have special classes, while the left over kids are considered the average Joes.
Studies have shown how children live up or down to their expectations. Here is an example. A group of children with similar educational abilities were divided into two categories. One group went to a teacher who was told that the children were gifted. The other group of children went to a teacher who was instructed the children were learning disabled. After a time of instruction, the perceived gifted kids did well, as expected and the perceived slow learners did poorly, as expected. In spite of this research, we continue to segregate and have expectations.
I think the whole gifted thing is more about the parents wanting to have bragging rights in their circles than it has to do with education. On the other hand, separating out the bad kids can be about giving up on difficult kids or an excuse for not getting creative. Both instances are not about the kids, they are about the adults taking care of them.
Another thing I don't like about the term "gifted" is that it implies some kids have it and some do not. My thinking is we are all gifted. It is much more important what we do with what we have than it is to glorify what we have. In other words, someone with an IQ of 130 may be intelligent, but it does not necessarily predict how successful they will be. A kid with a 100 IQ who works hard can easily out perform a lazy person with the IQ of 130.
My concern is that message is not being sent. The gifted kids already feel like they have arrived by virtue of their label. Average kids are not encouraged to reach for the stars and the bad kids slip farther and farther behind the pack. Jail awaits them almost certainly.
Now, I know there are good teachers out there who work their tails off. They spend their own money on their kids and lie awake nights worrying about how to get through to them. I also know that what I described above exists all too much.
I would advocate keeping the mix of kids together. If junior is so smart, then why deprive the dumb kids of his brilliant comments in class discussions? Maybe they will be leaders or inspirations to others. Maybe one of the mid packers will get the attention of the gifted children when they see how hard they work to learn.
I would like to see parents lighten up. Children do not need tutors and flash cards as much as they need their parents to spend time with them. They need their grandparents too. History is much better learned from eyewitnesses.
Do you remember the movie "Baby Boom." The whole point of the movie was to lighten up and not be so anal about education. Some people feel their kid is ruined if they aren't accepted into the in vogue day care.
Educators debate about the path of education, but we all seem to do just fine no matter which path we took. This brings us back to an earlier point. Somehow, we all know that 2 + 2 = 4 and that George Washington was the first President. Do we really need to know it at age 3 or 4?
Until the next time
John Strain