Norwood for student working several grade-leves ahead?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Are you the new poster, the private school booster and the sock puppet?

You are all over the board. Retirement must be hearty. We eagerly await more of your cut and paste jobs.

I suspect we have two different people here. This troll, who just wants to disrupt and should be completely ignored.

Then, the shrill poster who thinks the choice facing every kid is between hyperacceleration and homeschooling, with no grey areas or differences among kids. I'd be interested in having a thoughtful conversation with the second person, if she will let down some of her defenses and seemingly nonnegotiable positions, in order to allow dialogue.

[Anonymous]

This is why people ought to log in or at least sign posts.

Sam2 (not logged in b/c using someone elses computer)

[Anonymous]

I wonder if there is a way to require that at least the repeat offenders, trolls and sock puppets sign in. This could be automated so that Jeff doesn't have to hands-on manage it.

For example, there could be a button next to the "report" button that says "suspected troll" or "obnoxious but doesn't rise to the level of complaining to Jeff," or something like that. If you reach a certain threshold of people clicking that you're a troll, then you are required to log in. Yeah, some people have multiple IP addresses so you'd have to be a serial offender to get caught at all your IP addresses. But, just a thought!

Anyway, I'm still interested in talking calmly with the homeschooling mom about why she made that choice and what the privates and magnets failed to offer her.

[Anonymous]

Interesting piece in the WSJ:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704111504576059713528698754.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_RIGHTTopCarousel_1

Illustrates the myriad of ways children are raised in our world. All approaches work. The best approach is what fits your life style and family therefore, I have seen why public school works for some folk while private school for others.

[Anonymous]

Addendum 14:01 again:

It is ironic that some revered Western football coaches get the same ultimate performance, respect and love from their players with a similar tactic.

[Anonymous]

The WSJ piece was really interesting. I see from one of the photos that the author's daughter played at Carnegie Hall.

If I understand this mom's message, it's that every kid is potential hyper-acceleration material, whether in public or private -- if only the mom pushes hard enough!

Which raises a different issue, about whether talent is innate. Or, can talent be acquired with 10,000 hours of practice (as some say).

A third possible issue raised by the article maybe concerns motivation. I've read that it's all well and good to talk about practicing 10,000 hours, but it's only the HG/PG kids who have the determination to spend these hours. And, some kids get to Carnegie Hall because they love music. Others, because mom launched WWIII over The Little White Donkey, putting the girl's dollhouse and birthday parties for the next 3 years on the line. The author says that mastering something can make you like it. I think that's probably right for some kids. For all kids? I'm not so sure. Kids are pleasers, and they'll learn Little White Donkey to earn reconciliation and a snuggle with mom that night.

I don't have any answers. Just throwing these thoughts out there.

[Anonymous]

Funny, I didn't think the article had anything to do with hyperacceleration of children in school rather the article illustrated one's mother's philosophical approach to raising and parenting her children. The approach is not based on WPSSI scores, gifted labels, or whether the kid is in private or public school; but the innate relationship and bond between a mother and a child and in her case the belief all her children can excel and her maternal job is to see to it this happens. In her worldview and culture academic accomplishments trumps lacrosse and sailing.

[Anonymous]

Some claim talent is born of nature and nurture

"Chinese mom" employs a "hands-on" approach to nurture talent (I shall show you the way until you find your passion) while "Western mom" takes the laissez-faire approach or "hands-off" approach (daughter find your passion and you will find your way)

There are examples of successes and failures with either approach.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Funny, I didn't think the article had anything to do with hyperacceleration of children in school rather the article illustrated one's mother's philosophical approach to raising and parenting her children. The approach is not based on WPSSI scores, gifted labels, or whether the kid is in private or public school; but the innate relationship and bond between a mother and a child and in her case the belief all her children can excel and her maternal job is to see to it this happens. In her worldview and culture academic accomplishments trumps lacrosse and sailing.

Actually, I took away that her kids were expected to excel in some extra-curricular activities, but to shun others. Musical accomplishments in particular seem to be a big part of her worldview. Her oldest daughter played at Carnegie Hall and mom leaned hard on the second daughter to stick with piano. I didn't see her talk about her views of sports, so I'm not sure whether her kids did soccer or anything else. But theater, by comparison, is not even allowed!

I do like that she does not care about IQ scores, WPSSI scores or gifted labels. She seems to think that any kid to rise to the top, if only mom is there to override her child's innate reluctance to get started. This is why I'm interested in issues like talent (is 10,000 hours enough to make anybody a musical superstar or leading academic physicist?) and motivation (can/should mom provide motivation where the kid doesn't have it?).

[Anonymous]

I think it's definitely fair to say, as one PP did, that there are examples of success and failure with this mom's method.

Her own story seems to be a success. (Although her kids still seem youngish, and we haven't heard their side of the story.)

For an example of how this method can fail, has anybody read about "AP Frank" in the Over Achievers, the book that came out a few years ago about Walt Whitman HS in Bethesda? His Korean mom called Whitman to complain that they don't offer AP Gym, because his normally-weighted gym class was pulling down his average. Fast forward and he did get into Harvard, but he's studying environmental science instead of the medicine she wanted; the husband is divorcing her; and social services were actually called to protect the younger brother.

[Anonymous]

Does this philosophical approach explain the distribution of USA and WORLD math, science, engineering, computing, Intel, Seimens, NMSF and AP Scholar (College Board) awards as an example?
Oops, I forgot to add the music awards? This is a sail boat load of extracurricular accomplishments indeed!

[Anonymous]

I think it's definitely fair to say, as one PP did, that there are examples of success and failure with this mom's method.

Her own story seems to be a success. (Although her kids still seem youngish, and we haven't heard their side of the story.)

For an example of how this method can fail, has anybody read about "AP Frank" in the Over Achievers, the book that came out a few years ago about Walt Whitman HS in Bethesda? His Korean mom called Whitman to complain that they don't offer AP Gym, because his normally-weighted gym class was pulling down his average. Fast forward and he did get into Harvard, but he's studying environmental science instead of the medicine she wanted; the husband is divorcing her; and social services were actually called to protect the younger brother.

I don't have to read a book to see the failures. Public and fancy private schools are full of them in my neck of the woods.

[Anonymous]

What a lot of people don't understand is that parents of pg kids don't generally want to "hyperaccelerate" them. They are naturally hyperaccelerated, regardless of what you do. It isn't uncommon for a pg 7 year old to be functioning at the level of a gifted 13 year old in all academic subjects. They didn't get there by being hothoused at home. They just "get it." There is a lot of stuff other kids need to learn that these kids just know intuitively or pick up without trying.

These kids don't need schools to "hyperaccelerate" them. They need them to teach them at a level appropriate to their intellectual ability and achievement levels, not their date of manufacture.

Maybe it's hard to understand if you haven't dealt with it. It's easy to think that a parent who lets their kid go to college at 8 has pushed them, unless you know that the kid has been ready to go to college since 6, and begging to start.

I haven't noticed anybody suggesting that ALL pg kids need to be accelerated or homeschooled. What has been said is that MOST pg kids need to be homeschooled or accelerated. Fifty percent of all Davidson kids are homeschooled at some point, and twenty percent at any point in time. Hardly any are in private school, even when their parents can afford it, because it is USUALLY a bad fit. Most of the schooled kids are accelerated, NOT because their parents want them to be nerds who spend their lives doing math, but because, as a VAST body of research suggests, acceleration is the best option for these kids, not just academically, but emotionally and socially.

I'm anticipating SAM2 wanting to know what research I'm talking about. Read the Templeton Report on Acceleration or Exceptionally Gifted Children by Miraca Gross.

[Anonymous]

psst, according to a music teacher friend of mine, kids get to "play Carnegie Hall" because some organization (school, youth orchestra, etc.) shelled out the $$ to rent the place. It's not an honor. (His school -- not local-- does this because it wows the parents. He thinks it's pretty stupid.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:?..
I haven't noticed anybody suggesting that ALL pg kids need to be accelerated or homeschooled. What has been said is that MOST pg kids need to be homeschooled or accelerated. Fifty percent of all Davidson kids are homeschooled at some point, and twenty percent at any point in time. Hardly any are in private school, even when their parents can afford it, because it is USUALLY a bad fit. Most of the schooled kids are accelerated, NOT because their parents want them to be nerds who spend their lives doing math, but because, as a VAST body of research suggests, acceleration is the best option for these kids, not just academically, but emotionally and socially.

I'm anticipating SAM2 wanting to know what research I'm talking about. Read the Templeton Report on Acceleration or Exceptionally Gifted Children by Miraca Gross.

Thanks for anticipating my request for support. Do those two reports support your statistics (50%, 20%) and your claim that privates are usually a bad fit? Or are you drawing those claims from some other source? And if so, please cite that source as well. If the source for those claims is just your personal intuition, that's fine, but please make it clear. Thanks.