In my previous post about Math I alleged that part of the point is to train and evaluate the ability to make logical leaps, and because of that tutoring is seen as something to help children catch up but also as something that works against the student if it's used to allow them to "preview material" before the course.
I decided I needed to elucidate.
My assumptions throughout will be indented in Bold:
1. The idea of having something that the student hasn't seen yet is to encourage them to reach toward the next step or two. It is actual training for them to make logical leaps.
If a child is eligible for honors classes because they're actually a half-year ahead of everyone else, in other words if they make logical leaps almost always because they've already formally learned the material, they're missing this part of the educational process.
And this leads me to the entire concept of honors, gifted, talented
students in the U.S.
"Honors" programs are expensive.
Further, most people consider gifted children to be an elite, and the US system attempts to be egalitarian (yes, and it fails miserably but it's an objective).
Further, in many places funding for gifted education comes out of the same budget as funding for Special Education (learning disabilities, emotional and behavioral developmental disorders, etc.). So in a tight budget, how do you defend having separate Gifted and Talented programs? After all, don't these children similarly have exceptional parents? Don't those parents usually attain financial success and can't they just provide enrichment activities?
Well, here's the deal:
Most people have the understanding that if you take a gifted child and put him or her in a regularly paced classroom, they'll be terminally bored. Being an honors student isn't meant to be an honor, literally; it's meant to reflect precisely this ability to think ahead three steps.
An image of a U.S. Honors student in class:
- As the teacher builds up to the conclusion of how to do the problem, the honors student is typically half-way through the worksheet.
- When the teacher has moved into the second example, and the student has finished today's homework, and begins drawing all over it, he or she can and does get into trouble for not paying attention -- particularly if they haven't actually done the worksheet on paper, they just "did it in their head," realized it would be easy, and started drawing immediately.
- Then when the teacher's on the third example, the student begins to talk to his or her peer.
- And then the next day, when the teacher begins explaining again because most students in class have been having a few problems with the homework, the honors student starts kicking the desk in front of him, or... I don't know... writing a Manifesto....
It's not that boredom itself is a sin, but children who are understimulated can become troublesome -- in the parlance of the day, they're "at-risk" -- and the US Educational system isn't focused on creating obedient people, it's focused on building upon knowledge and developing cleverness. So an understimulated honors student needs to be pushed. Hard.
Otherwise, you should just leave the moderately bright kids who work hard in the same class as the moderately bright kids who don't work so hard, the kids who are catching up, and the kids who struggle somewhat but have no real learning problems. And spend the money on materials. Studies have shown that having the smart, high performing kids in the same classes as the other students raises the performance of the average and lower students.
Instead, intellectually gifted students are seen as having a natural ability that needs to be taken into consideration. It's like taking a coordinated six-foot-tall 12 year old and having him play basketball with his five-foot-tall peers. Someone ends up getting hurt, just because the big kid can't help but throw his weight around. He needs to be challenged.
And if a 12 year old student is really (intellectually) 5'0" -- not 6'0" -- they probably will have a lot more energy and absorb much more if they're in a group of other kids their same "height" rather than trying to play with the students who just happen to be (intellectually) tall.
(Note: One of the huge advantages of customized curriculum as delivered via computer is precisely that it not only takes away the problems inherent in teaching a group of people, but it also takes away the observable discrepancies so the children can relate to each other more naturally.)
2. Serious students should be in a group where they have to work to get an A or high B, but an A is achievable. Whatever class that is; whatever level that is. Whatever college that means.
Unless of course they're going back to live in a different country, to attend college in a different school system. Then I can't give any suggestions at all.
2b. Corollary: Students who put themselves in a situation where they're consistently earning only a C+ or lower are not being successful
...even if they're in a very challenging class. They don't sufficiently understand the material, which means they won't be able to build upon it. The ONLY time this might not be true is if the teacher tests frequently at the edges of learning, as described in the previous post on Math. The only way to know if that's the case is to talk directly to the teacher and ask them.
And last, in the United States, people have -- at least in the past -- held several principles:
3. Everyone is free to make their own choice.
Your parents push you the wrong way? Maybe you need to better know who you are; maybe you need to have more courage of your convictions; maybe you need to learn how to develop your own goals (though everyone has taken advice that didn't work for them!). There are ways to be polite and respectful but to do what you have to do as an individual. The assumption is that the responsibility is fairly soundly placed on the individual, not on the parents or family, particularly in urban areas and particularly in the West.
4. There is always a second chance.
On an individual level, you are both responsible for your past choices and also will be absolved if you genuinely reform or change course. For example, if you are a mess in school, you drop out, and you spend your life living on the street or in friends' homes, but at age 23 you decide to pull yourself together, you can take an exam which gives you a High School degree, and with that can enroll in a community (2-year) college, and then a 4-year college. Your past does not encumber you, so long as you don't have a criminal record (and even then there's some forgiveness).
5. Life is too short.
The other side of this is that there's not an endless amount of time to goof up, and so there is a social pressure to not "waste time." This pressure often completely replaces any sense that people must do something right the first time, whether that's for good or ill.
And that's the Word. Rapid Prototyping.
Comments