Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

'Gifted Child Industry' Preys on Parents' Insecurities

By Helaine Olen, AlterNet. Posted October 18, 2006.


Even as a lucrative industry is making millions off of parents' desire to ensure that their kids are exceptional, public schools are cutting programs for children that are truly gifted.
42644story
42644_story

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Helaine Olen

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

Of all the myriad people I’ve met through my children, there is still one type I’m waiting to encounter: The parent of an average child. Kids are all special these days, it seems, needing enrichment toys as infants, music classes as toddlers and intensive academics when they are in school. How did we get to this pass?

Alissa Quart takes us on a journey to the dark heart of the parenting meritocracy in her new book, "Hothouse Kids: The Dilemma of the Gifted Child." In her view, an increased emphasis on the early years of childhood by sociologists and educators coalesced with parental fears of failing schools and a faltering economy sometime in the mid- to late 1990s. Stir in some astute marketing by firms such as the Baby Einstein Co. and you have the makings of modern American childhood, a period marked by an increased emphasis on study and structured activity and less on play. Or at least it’s that way for upper-middle-class progeny, the ones with parents who have the extra money to buy their kids extra attention and services.

As the rich are getting richer, their children are gaining the opportunity to get smarter. States are gutting funding for gifted education in the public schools even as well-to-do parents fight for appointments with specialized intelligence evaluators who charge a thousand dollars or more per child. What Quart dubs the "Baby Genius Edutainment Complex” has resulted in a world where extra services for kids are increasingly available only to those who can pay for outside tutoring, extracurricular activities or the high tax rates of elite suburban school districts. Call it the privatization of giftedness, where all too many children are being left behind.

Quart is hardly the first to make these points. Sociologist Annette Lareau’s landmark book Unequal Childhoods pointed to the calendar as the new center of middle class family life, the date book having replaced the dining room table as the center of all household doings. Moreover, within the past year several new books, including "The Kindergarten Wars," by Alan Eisenstock, and "The Overachievers," by Alexandra Robbins, have examined the high-pressure world of upper-income American children. What makes Quart’s book unique is its systemic look at the world of these children and their families, from the Mozart tapes their parents play to them in utero to the conventions held for gifted children and their parents. She spends times with both the true prodigies -- those with unique skills manifested at an early age -- and those with just extra high IQs or other talents that are less than extraordinary but still special.

Of course, child prodigies and their pushy parents have always been with us. The Victorians had the hothouse environments of bourgeoisie homes, where children such as future philosopher John Stuart Mill were tutored as toddlers. More recently, there were the Quiz Kids in the 1940s, those champion knowledge-busters who knew more than the adults asking them questions. What’s new is the mass appeal of the concept, the idea that this is something all parents should aspire to, not just a few particularly achievement-oriented moms and dads.

Yet, are these parents doing their kids any favors? In the end, Quart is unable to decide. A former gifted child herself, she notes that many now-adult prodigies and gifted children grow up with a profound fear of failure, with a sense they will never fulfill they promise of their early childhood talent, despite their more mature accomplishments. However, she also believes she might well have not become a writer without her father’s insistence that she read, write and study when many of her friends were out at play.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: education, parenting, children

Helaine Olen has written for the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, Salon and other publications. She is an associate editor at LiteraryMama.com.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
learn
Posted by: rsaxto on Oct 18, 2006 1:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Seems to me that the same kind of bullshit that has infected the corporate world is now infecting the school world. I think any decent kind of attention given to a child will help that child to learn.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: learn Posted by: edith
Circles
Posted by: edith on Oct 18, 2006 2:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ms. Olen must be in the "Upper West Side" Woody Allen set. All those toys for gifted children, summer camp, enrichment, etc.

How about more articles about average kids and the lousy unimaginative schools they cope with and the lousy jobs the vast majority face when and if they graduate high school. Fewer and fewer will graduate as a result of the Bush-Ted Kennedy No Child Left Alive Act. The gifted, whatever they are, will survive. What about the rest?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» just for most well-paying ones. Posted by: medstudgeek
» RE: Circles Posted by: grammasanity
first do no harm
Posted by: aislinnluv on Oct 18, 2006 4:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
ought to be the by-word of education. when i was in school there was little, if any, in the way of programs for gifted children. we had "major works" english classes, which i suppose are the equivalent of today's "honors" classes. but beyond that, nil. what i deplore these days is the seemingly total lack of effective teaching of even the basic skills. when i listen to the teachers speak, i don't hear proper english. even the instructors are not practicing what they are supposed to be passing along to their charges. do i wish there were better programs in public schools for kids who show real talent beyond the average level? sure. i'd be really happy, though, if we could see our schools graduating all students with the ability to use their own language effectively, calculate simple math problems correctly, read a map and identify states and countries correctly. all the baby genius programs in the world won't help if we can't and don't insist that children have a solid foundation in the basic educational skills, reading, speaking, math. spend the dollars on the schools, on paying teachers what their talents are worth, on art and music programs in the schools.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: first do no harm Posted by: enakcma
» RE: first do no harm Posted by: grammasanity
Ambition has no virtue according to Aristotle.
Posted by: Sojourner on Oct 18, 2006 5:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yet "being ambitious" is touted as an indication of good character. That's because it can be used by the peddlers. It means selling yourself.

Why would anyone want to sell themselves? That's the American cultural myth that covers up the fact that social status is something that comes with birth. It's the idea that, as Bob Dylan sings it, "You can do what's never been done. You can win what's never been won." It's a lie.

And the consequence is a nation of hyper-aggression that desires to rule the world by threat and violence. How does that square with the frequent comment that we are a Christian nation? It doesn't, except that belief in heaven works for warriors who must put their lives on the line.

We are ideologically confused. I hope some Baby Genius can help us get straightened out before it's too late.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Overenrichment?
Posted by: graylegend on Oct 18, 2006 6:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The liberal mindset is that anything desirable must be in short supply, and the fact that some people have more of it than others is a sign of exploitation and expropriation.

Now this applies to child enrichment. Note to all: there is no fixed supply of enrichment. The fact that well-educated parents provide a lot of enrichment to their children does not take away the ability of anyone else to provide such enrichment. This is, however, less likely to happen. In our meritocratic society, high-achievers will tend to earn more, plan their families more carefully, and spend the extra time and effort necessary to do the best job possible raising their children. Naturally this confers advantages on those children. But that’s not unfair; that’s just what it means to be a family – doing your best for your children, according to your abilities.

Because it’s asking too much of less advantaged parents to provide more enrichment to their kids, and because the schools are already overburdened just providing the basics, the only solution to any perceived inequity is to get the better-advantaged parents to lay off. Thus we are told not to overschedule or push our kids too hard, lest we damage their tender psyches. From what I’ve seen, reports of burnout are highly exaggerated. The opposite happens much more often – kids are not challenged to rise to their full potential, and wind up drifting through life with no real purpose.

Saying that giftedness is just a code for middle-class is also an irresponsible statement. It may be that gifted programs are just ways to segregate kids by class, which is a terrible thing and should be changed. But know that giftedness does exist, at all social strata, and for the gifted child it can either be the greatest gift or a staggering burden, depending on how the adults around him/her react to it. Gifted children are a small minority, and they are profoundly different and usually misunderstood.

For what it’s worth, I have inspected the Baby Einstein and other similar products on the market and find them to be of limited utility – just marketing gimmicks. They fall far short of the items in my basic educational toolkit: legos, crayons, library card. Beyond the basics, I think there’s actually a paucity of materials designed to truly nurture talent and develop intellectual ability. I’d be happy to share the few that I have found with anyone who is interested. I don’t see this as a competition for a few fixed resources – the more gifted (and not so gifted) children are encouraged to explore their abilities, the better for everyone.

p.s. It’s not a question of schools doing a better job. Schools do not exist to develop full human potential, and they sure don’t care about the kid who already “gets it” and sits bored in the back of the class while others struggle to learn what he knew three years ago. Not just public schools – very elite private schools are the same way. Once the gifted child achieves something, the school is happy to take credit. The messy process that converts giftedness into achievement is not something they want to be bothered with. It is up to parents, or perhaps some renegade teacher who takes an interest despite institutional pressure, to help the gifted child.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Overenrichment? Posted by: mazur
» RE: Overenrichment? Posted by: edith
» RE: Overenrichment? Posted by: bichomau
» RE: Overenrichment? Posted by: grammasanity
Hold the gravy train.
Posted by: KatieT on Oct 18, 2006 7:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Many of the comments I read are unfairly critical of teachers and schools. I am a teacher, and one also certified to teach gifted.

It may be true that the dropout rate is high, but could it be that this is because several states have mandated that the students pass one standardized test to prove that they can regurgitate information? This includes students learning English as a second language having to pass language arts tests. These tests don't measure critical thinking skills and don't allow for multiple answers, nor can they possibly be expected to account for all of the learning that a child is to have learned over the 12 years of cumpulsory schooling.

It is the average kids that already get a lot of the attention. It is these kids that many teachers work towards, knowing that, if they can help those kids make it up a few points on their state's test, then their school will not be in jeopardy of losing needed funds. I'm sure it is true that the gifted will survive. But survival is what you do in the worst case scenario. Surviving is a lot different from thriving. How can we expect the baby geniouses to figure it all out for us, as someone said, if we are leaving them in their classroom to figure it out and keep themselves busy or tutor other kids instead of learning and progressing to the best of their abilities- which may mean that we, as their teachers, need to do something a little bit different for them.

It's true that our testing for gifted is biased. We need to make some serious changes in the way we identify these kids. We need to create more programs like EDGE in Jacksonville, FL, that gives potentially gifted kids a boost until they can pass the test that is in place for identifying gifted. But what would be better is if we could redesign the test to make it culturally appropriate for all kids so that we could more accurately identify giftedness in all kids, not just middle-class white kids. But this takes money, something gifted departments don't have, considering more and more of it gets cut every day.

I most definitely have to take issue with the comment that teachers don't care about the kid who already "gets it". There are thousands of teachers across the country who work for these kids every day. It is our responsibility, as teachers, to educate every child. This does not mean teach the same thing to everyone. This means look at every child, find where he/she is, and take them farther. Gifted students need to be given the opportunity to learn new things just as much as the average kid. We cannot expect these kids to grow up to be great world citizens if we believe that their talent doesn't exist or that they will figure it out on their own.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Hold the gravy train. Posted by: kittynboi
Former gifted child here.
Posted by: caitlin on Oct 18, 2006 7:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
*raises hand*

Former gifted child here. I started reading and writing well before I was in kindergarten. In third grade, my teacher had no idea what to do with me during reading and writing, so she sent me to the library to tutor first and second graders during that part of the day. I ended up skipping fourth grade. By the time I got to junior high school, though, I was so bored and so unchallenged that I just didn't try. I ended up graduating high school with a 3.7 GPA, while rarely doing a lick of homework in the process.

(Of course this all backfired on me during college. I'm giving it my second go now, with all of my efforts, and I'm now an honors student with straight As. My journalism professor has called me one of the department's finest students.)

Anyways, I could have written this passage myself:

she notes that many now-adult prodigies and gifted children grow up with a profound fear of failure, with a sense they will never fulfill they promise of their early childhood talent, despite their more mature accomplishments.

It's so sad how true this is. I spent much of my early twenties feeling like a complete failure, like I had squandered my brilliance by not attending a school like Harvard, by not finishing my BA in three years, by not getting into law school before I was twenty-two, and so on and so forth. You start to feel like you HAVE to be this bright shining star at everything you do, and it wears on you. No matter how good you are or how many things you do, you always feel like you are letting your family and your teachers down.

The really irritating thing is that people act like my "giftedness" was some sort of innate trait that I was born with. I hate that. The truth is, I was raised by parents who loved to read and who taught me to love to read. If I wanted a telescope, I got it, PLUS my dad would stand out back with me and help me find Jupiter and Saturn with it. If I wanted a microscope, I got it, AND I got to take trips to local ponds to grab Mason jars full of water for me to examine on my little slides. When I asked my mom where babies came from as a five year old, she sat me down and explained the whole process to me, complete with drawings of sperm and everything. I had a library card by the time I was seven. They encouraged me to enter spelling bees and geography bees and to try different instruments and to paint and to sew. None of these things cost a lot of money - the kind of telescope I got as a kid cost my parents about forty bucks, and it was well worth it. There was not a lot of pressure on me - I saw learning as something fun, a natural extension of the curiosity that every kid is born with.

I think most kids have it in them to be considered "gifted", but in our climate of anti-intellectualism, where reading books is enough to have one labeled a "fag" and where all of the joy of discovery and learning and questioning is sucked out by emphasis on rote memorization, standardized test prep, and exasperated parents who lack the patience to deal with the unending barrage of "Why?" We squash kids before they even have a chance to blossom. I look at all of this Baby Einstein nonsense, and to me, it's no different than telling your kid to stop asking so many questions. It turns the process of learning into a chore, like doing the dishes or dusting Mom's knick-knacks. Just another thing to check off the list before going out to play with the other kids, you know? This idea that learning should be fun and enjoyable is foreign in modern education.

(cont'd)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Former gifted child here. (cont'd)
Posted by: caitlin on Oct 18, 2006 7:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's too bad, really. I hear about schools taking out their playgrounds and I feel so bad for those kids. Here in Florida, they recently announced a plan to cut the summer vacation from three months to two. It's evident that people want their kids to be bright and curious and motivated, but they are going about it the wrong way. All that's going to happen now is that we will have even more generations of kids grow up to be adults who never read books, who only watch TV, who are incurious about the world around them, who don't care to learn anything more, simply because it's been ingrained in them that learning and education = boring tedious work.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Gifted Child
Posted by: staringatthesun on Oct 18, 2006 10:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I was put into gifted classes when I was seven. My skills in school were in fact something above average and by seven it was beginning to manifest itself as boredom. Fortunately they caught me before it turned disruptive. The program I was first in had a lit program, a shop class (where we also did disections and I'm not sure how this tied together), and botony where we actually ran a hydroponic greenhouse and sold our crop. This was an increadible thing, one year we built a sailboat and took it out. Then I moved to a new school district where the school took extra money from the state as a reward for having me. An award that is only granted when consenting to provide special programming for these students. The first couple years here they offered a program where I could take my study hall in the library and work on a puzzle if I chose to. Then they stopped offering programing all together while still taking the money. My mom questioned them and she recieved the "run around."
Having an opportunity to work with other legitimately talented students in the first program was really exciting. I really wanted to be in those classes. It is a worthy venture to provide alternative programming to students who don't work at the same pace as the average student.
In high school I even got bored in the advanced placement classes because we had to work too slowly through the material. This was to accommodate the average students who worked extra hard to keep up in classes they should not have been in. These classes should have had tests set up to differentiate between the truly talented students and those who just wanted an advantage on their college applications. I dropped most of my AP classes because they bored me.
There is no point in blaming the corporations. We provide them a market. We want money, they want money; their advantage is they have found a way to market products that promise us more money. The sickening thing to me is that as Americans we routinely buy the product, no matter what it is, or we take that job working for a contractor in Iraq because it pays five times what we get at home. Then when we get shot at and we complain because the company is trying to save money and put us in jeopardy to do it. Really, we are filling the positions that allow them to cut corners and ensure their profit margins so that we can make more money. We the Greedy...will go anywhere and do anything as long as we get rich doing it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's the average and dumb kids who suffer....
Posted by: morticia on Oct 18, 2006 12:46 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
....when they're segregated from the smart ones. Smart kids prevail, and are infinitely resourceful. Smart kids teach and inspire average and dumb kids, intentionally or not, when they're all mixed together. That's how it was in my school. My second-grade teacher sent me across the hall to help tutor the third-graders in reading and writing. On the playground, the smart imaginative kids thought up the games, and everybody got to participate.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

How can we stop it
Posted by: albrechtkrausse on Oct 18, 2006 2:15 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
it is pervasive in so many areas of your child's life. Kids now need to be in 'gifted' classes, in high school they need to take AP or IB classes to inflate GPA enough to get into university, kids can't just play sports but must join travelling 'select' teams, kids have to 'focus' on one sport beginning in elementary school, we need to buy 'Baby Einstein' videos for babies, etc. etc. Its insanity. Pure insanity.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Lots of good comments here...
Posted by: medstudgeek on Oct 18, 2006 4:06 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A) Competitiveness. I think this has to do with increased economic inequality. Fewer good spots so competition for them is fiercer. This is especially true at the upper echelons. In the overpaid field of medicine, a medical student who does well in school (or gets into a top school like Harvard, Hopkins, et al.) has access to specialties. Since this can mean $400K instead of $100K for life, medical school competition can get pretty brutal. Wait, you say, $100K is a GREAT salary! Most people never make that much! Yes and no. First of all you pick up hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt (which is a hell of a barrier to entry for children of the lower and middle classes) and it can be hard to pay that off even at 100K a year. Second, a lot of these guys come from affluent backgrounds where that's an average salary, so they don't think it's so hot. Third, there's a lot of hard work involved, so getting to the top seems like a huge achievement: people tend to think they've 'earned' their oversized salaries. (Of course, your gastroenterologist's yacht money could have paid for colonoscopies and non-fatty food for lots of poor people...but I digress.)

B) 'Every child is gifted'...or not. Obviously intelligence varies just like athletic ability and height, and just like those things is affected by environment. I do think American anti-intellectualism isn't helping matters here. And of course as lefties we want to decrease inequality, so gifted education just seems like Reaganomics of the mind. Of course smart kids who aren't challenged tend to get into trouble, and I've always suspected that Republicans dislike smart kids because they fear they'll turn into Democrats...but that's probably just my prejudice as a liberal.

C) Class and giftedness. I wouldn't be too surprised if all the scheming of the rich does raise their kids' IQ by a few points, and I bet the deprivation of the poor does depress their kids' IQ. Another problem is race: tracking by test scores tends to segregate by race due to accumulated ethnic income disparities (ever notice how the black and Latino kids always wind up at the bottom?) and cultural values (Harvard had to change their whole admissions policy to keep from being flooded with Jews in the early 20th century, and they may be doing the same thing with Asians now), so this tends to be a problem with the left (which supports lower-status groups) as well.

In short, the left is not going to take up the cause of the gifted. Hey, this is America, we don't value intelligence. That's why we have to import our scientists from overseas, and that's why Bush pretends to be stupid after losing his first campaign to someone who pointed out his Ivy League background. (Intellectually incurious and lazy, yes. Stupid, no.)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Lots of good comments here... Posted by: albrechtkrausse
» RE: Lots of good comments here... Posted by: medstudgeek
special needs
Posted by: 2marina on Oct 18, 2006 4:18 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
when i was identified as a gifted child in the mid-70s my public school had to handle me administratively as a "special needs" child; the severly learning challenged students and my brother and i (for whatever reasons the only identified "gifted" children at our working-class school) were tested and counseled in the same workroom alongside mentally disabled students. the understanding then of gifted education, while imperfect and full of administrative roadblocks, was that the emotional and social well-being of the gifted child required special attention, as well as advanced academic opportunities.

what i hear in the book's questions is interrelated with the history of american education: the mainstreaming of everything. whether a child is "special needs" in terms of learning disabilities, or "gifted," or just on a particular day "in need" of specialized instruction, our current educational system does not encourage students to perform uniquely or teachers to respond to individual learning styles and situational demands.

what we risk by front-loading "gifted" education is less the gross re-playing of class dynamics (though certainly that takes place, as it does in so many areas of our educational and social systems) and more a systemic arrogance of what smart or "gifted" should be, need, become. this works to discourage the creativity and individuality of truly gifted children, and i would argue, also sets a dangerous pattern for how to recognize and support good work by "average" children.

i believe this is what starts to show up in the comparision tests between american students and their international peers. it is a puzzling and worrisome paradox how democratic education could come to mean aggressively normalized education, with little room for the development of the individual, gifted, challenged, poor, rich, urban, rural, and all that grows in between.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Really, you're talking about actualizing human potential in a healthy manner
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Oct 18, 2006 6:58 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What's odd is that it's obvious that strength and endurance are largely due to training. If Michael Jordan had spent his teen years playing video games and eating ice cream.

There is also a certain level of genetic potential; for example while almost anyone can train to run a marathon, some people will never win a marathon no matter how hard they train; likewise, there are height limitations when it comes to playing basketball. The eugenics approach of breeding humans for specific traits, as if humans were sheep, is considered by most to be highly distasteful on basic moral and historical grounds - i.e. "Auschwitz Syndrome". Hopefully it will outlive "Vietnam Syndrome".

More importantly, people should recognize that mental skill development requires training, just as strength and endurance do. Segregating children into 'gifted', 'average' and 'challenged' at an early age becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy. The classic example of this is the perfectly healthy child who was dropped off at an orphanage for the mentally under-developed by his disaffected mother. As he grew up, he behaved as expected and mimiced the behavior of the other children, who actually did have severe physical and developmental problems. It wasn't until he was a teenager that an observant doctor noticed he had no real problem, and within a few years, with much assistance, he was able to live independently.

For an even more startling example, see theage.com.au - The Girl who Really Runs with the Wolves"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

And the children in our public schools
Posted by: MEL810 on Oct 18, 2006 9:08 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And the children in our public schools continue to be taught to the SOL (Standards of Learning or as we in VA call it, the S**t Out of Luck test) and other such tests with no opportunity to explore topics that interest them.
The ONLY topic of interest and the ONLY topic that is taught is "Will it be on the test?"
This continues into college. I've sat in many a college classroom where students asked: "Will this be on the test?" and if the information was not on the test, they tuned it out. Students actually expect 'test cheat sheats' where they study a copy of the test and memorize the answers to parrot back on the test.
After working in a community college and seeing many, many freshmen who could not read, write and do math as well as an elementary school graduate of years past, it's evident our foundational education system is a failure.
The solution? A solid foundation of the three r's with no computers until those skills are solid. Teach reading with phonics, not see-and-say.
After the student builds solid basic skills and gains a grasp of other subjects(including computers), let them explore their own interests a bit. Another must: Parental and community involvement.
After school hours, let kids be kids. Let them have unstructured play outside and with other children. Limit TV and computer game time. If kids are interested in other activities such as a hobby, arts, music or sports, let them pick one. Don't send them to various lessons and interest groups seven days a week.
Doing it all at peak, multi-tasking perfomance is a modern American myth and our children shouldn't be made to live up to the myths of psychologically insecure parents. By trying to do it all at top speed, we're not doing anything worth doing.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Thank God I'm not a kid now
Posted by: kepstein7777 on Oct 19, 2006 2:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Years ago, there was a clearer distinction between the adult world and the kids' world. Now the adults are constantly invading the kids' world with their obsessions, insecurities, paranoias...And they're trying to drag the kids into their ugly, messy, workaholic world.

What happened to going to the creek and catching snakes? Or hanging out at the mall just to kill time?

Some of these middle class soccer moms need to get a life, and stop making their kids their hobby.

Quart's last comment isn't bad: Stop telling kids what they are and let them figure it
out for themselves.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I'm with you, kepstein7777
Posted by: morticia on Oct 19, 2006 11:13 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Childhood is over quickly enough. There'll never be another time in a person's life, with the possible exception of total senility, when he/she is free to simply enjoy it without obligations, structure, schedules, paperwork and responsibilities. One of the reasons child labor laws were passed was the plain certainty that childhood should be as free as it can possibly be.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

How schools train kids not to learn, but be corporate drones
Posted by: rclord on Oct 19, 2006 4:16 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hi all:

I really enjoyed reading all these comments. I'd like to recommend a website that I feel confirms them and my own feelings about the American education system:

http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

John Taylor Gatto would agree with you guys
Posted by: rclord on Oct 19, 2006 4:21 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sorry, I sent my first post too fast.

John Taylor Gatto wrote the book "Dumbing Us Down: The Hidden Curriculum of Public Schooling.

Check out his site:

http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/

I think a lot of what he says about our schools is right on the money.

Cheers.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Excelent book. Posted by: Ayla87
Do you know what the worst thing is?
Posted by: Callibrarian on Oct 19, 2006 10:26 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Those genius videos (and television as a whole) shorten a child's attention span, actually making them worst in school in the long run. The next time you watch television, count how long each frame last. The typical show changes frame every five to six seconds, meaning children get use to seeing 10-12 different images per minute. That's why they can't concentrate in class. Plus it stifles the imagination by giving children images rather than letting them create their own in their minds.

But even if they could concentrate, school has been made so boring I'm surprised students haven't started diving out the window. When my mother started teaching she was allowed to bring in puppets, show colorful books, direct crafts, take the kids on field trips, host cultural events---in other words, make class entertaining. By the time she retired, she and her fellow teachers were reduced to reading off scripts provided by McGraw-Hill and told there was not time to do anything else, nor were there any buses for fields trips. At a dinner for retired teachers I discovered several who taught foreign languages at my middle school---until the district cut them out. At my mother's poor school this would not be suspect. But my district was not poor, and this happened before huge rounds of budget cuts, which makes one wonder what exactly the people on high are up to. If they were intentionally trying to create a subserviant class of yes men, they did a marvelous job of it. Only problem is, now that innovation is taking place in the factories and labs we moved overseas, our undereducated, overfed, understimulated, uncultured children will be saying yes in a foreign language (that we have yet to learn) instead of to the American elite.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Single and Married Parents Spend More Time With Children. Much is Lost. ©
Posted by: Betsy L. Angert on Oct 20, 2006 11:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Dear Helaine Olen . . .

I thank you so much for this sharing. I linked to your glorious assessment in my own recent missive.

I fear families thrive or suffer regardless of the income. Money may ease the pain or alter it.

Schools are not supplementing the losses children face. Nor do I believe they can fully.

Parents, educational institutions, and society as a whole can do a much better job than they are.

In a world where students [or their parents] are reduced to consumers, the depth, and details of growing greater are lost.

I invite you to review my own exposé, Single and Married Parents Spend More Time With Children. Much is Lost. ©

Please share your thoughts. I welcome learning from you.

It is only the giving that makes us what [who] we are. - Ian Anderson. Jethro Tull . . . Betsy
Betsy L. Angert BeThink.org or Be-Think

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]