Does enrichment make "any" student smart and give a leg up?

[Anonymous]

I think you need to be specific about the kind of enrichment.

My child is in an enrichment class for reading comp and writing. She is middle elementary and the group has 2nd, 3rd, and 4th graders in it. They read novels, discuss them, and write reposes to reading prompts about the books' themes. The kids in the group are all reading above grade level (all reading at at least a 4th or 5th grade level) and have an expressed interest in reading more challenging books and writing more.

I don't think this group would be useful for just any group of kids. If you couldn't read at the same level, you would struggle with the books they read. And if they had to go at a slower pace, there would be less time for discussion and writing. Perhaps some kids not in the group would benefit, but overall I think most kids would get little out of it and making it a general class for all kids would diminish what the kids currently in the class get out of it.

It's like athletics. My kid in the advanced reading/writing group also plays soccer. She is not good. She plays on a rec team with other kids who aren't very good. Could all those kids advance their soccer skills if they were on a competitive club team? Sure, some. But would they get as much out if it as kids who are really great at soccer? No. Would their presence on the team diminish the experience of the better players? Yes.

It's okay to admit some kids are better than others at certain things. It's okay to offer kids who show demonstrated ability and interest extra opportunities. It doesn't mean we only educate some kids -- every kid deserves an education. But not every kid needs the exact same education. Kids have different strengths and interests.

[Anonymous]

Groups of children of any race have equal potential at birth. Within a homogeneous racial group, some will excel, the majority will be average, and some will be below average. I do not believe race alone favors any child.

However, I worked for years at Johns Hopkins University, Center for Talented Youth. Our research department, working off data from our talent search, proved the most academically talented students fell into 3 cohorts:

- one third were Asian (including Indian),
- one third were Jewish, and,
- one third were everyone else.

Genetically Asian or Jewish students are not more or less intelligent. They simply have cultural backgrounds which place a greater value on education.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Groups of children of any race have equal potential at birth. Within a homogeneous racial group, some will excel, the majority will be average, and some will be below average. I do not believe race alone favors any child.

However, I worked for years at Johns Hopkins University, Center for Talented Youth. Our research department, working off data from our talent search, proved the most academically talented students fell into 3 cohorts:

- one third were Asian (including Indian),
- one third were Jewish, and,
- one third were everyone else.

Genetically Asian or Jewish students are not more or less intelligent. They simply have cultural backgrounds which place a greater value on education.

Academic talent is not a gift you are born with; talent is cultivated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Groups of children of any race have equal potential at birth. Within a homogeneous racial group, some will excel, the majority will be average, and some will be below average. I do not believe race alone favors any child.

However, I worked for years at Johns Hopkins University, Center for Talented Youth. Our research department, working off data from our talent search, proved the most academically talented students fell into 3 cohorts:

- one third were Asian (including Indian),
- one third were Jewish, and,
- one third were everyone else.

Genetically Asian or Jewish students are not more or less intelligent. They simply have cultural backgrounds which place a greater value on education.

I agree that the degree to which a family focuses on and supports academics at home is the single most important factor in how kids advance academically.

We're a non-Jewish white family but we place a very high importance on academics and out kid is highly academic. We encounter families from all different backgrounds in enrichment activities and the uniting factor is the value placed on learning and focusing on studies.

[Anonymous]

I’m sure it helps an average motivated kid who tries hard. I don’t think you can enrich a below average kid to be a top kid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Groups of children of any race have equal potential at birth. Within a homogeneous racial group, some will excel, the majority will be average, and some will be below average. I do not believe race alone favors any child.

However, I worked for years at Johns Hopkins University, Center for Talented Youth. Our research department, working off data from our talent search, proved the most academically talented students fell into 3 cohorts:

- one third were Asian (including Indian),
- one third were Jewish, and,
- one third were everyone else.

Genetically Asian or Jewish students are not more or less intelligent. They simply have cultural backgrounds which place a greater value on education.

I agree that the degree to which a family focuses on and supports academics at home is the single most important factor in how kids advance academically.

We're a non-Jewish white family but we place a very high importance on academics and out kid is highly academic. We encounter families from all different backgrounds in enrichment activities and the uniting factor is the value placed on learning and focusing on studies.

I am the PP, and same: we’re a white (though multicultural) family with one child at TJ, and the other preparing to apply for T10 universities next year. Careers through higher education are the top priority for our family.

[Anonymous]

To answer original question, a big NO from us. We place huge emphasis on education but in the end no amount of enrichment and tutoring could overcome LDs. DC is in late high school now and works sooooo hard but that is just for Bs in general Ed. You all who don’t deal with LDs, please count your blessings because it sucks and was insurmountable for my DC given his various disabilities and genetic makeup.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To answer original question, a big NO from us. We place huge emphasis on education but in the end no amount of enrichment and tutoring could overcome LDs. DC is in late high school now and works sooooo hard but that is just for Bs in general Ed. You all who don’t deal with LDs, please count your blessings because it sucks and was insurmountable for my DC given his various disabilities and genetic makeup.

This is a good point. LDs can affect any child; it’s just random. And some are impossible to overcome.

There are others which co-exist with advanced academic ability.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Groups of children of any race have equal potential at birth. Within a homogeneous racial group, some will excel, the majority will be average, and some will be below average. I do not believe race alone favors any child.

However, I worked for years at Johns Hopkins University, Center for Talented Youth. Our research department, working off data from our talent search, proved the most academically talented students fell into 3 cohorts:

- one third were Asian (including Indian),
- one third were Jewish, and,
- one third were everyone else.

Genetically Asian or Jewish students are not more or less intelligent. They simply have cultural backgrounds which place a greater value on education.

I agree that the degree to which a family focuses on and supports academics at home is the single most important factor in how kids advance academically.

We're a non-Jewish white family but we place a very high importance on academics and out kid is highly academic. We encounter families from all different backgrounds in enrichment activities and the uniting factor is the value placed on learning and focusing on studies.

Asian American here. Our family puts high value on education. My oldest and youngest are very academic. My middle child gives me white hair and is rebellious. He is not focused on studies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hear that math and English enrichment programs can provide a leg up and an advantage over classroom peers, and there are opposing views that student's ability to abosorb enrichment content matter not the color of their skin or their economical standing. At the same time, I hear the argument that intelligence is shaped by a mix of factors, including natural ability, motivation, study habits, and access to resources. The argument is that that no amount of enrichment can truly enhance a student's ability to absorb information or put in more effort, irrespective of their social standing or lunch budget allocation. Thoughts?

Definitely! All the top kids have had lots of $$$enrichment.

Families with money are in a position to provide academic support to kids in the form of enrichment and tutoring. Families with more money are more likely to read to their kids and teach their kids things like numbers, sounds, colors, shapes and the like at home. Enrichment starts young and it does influence a child's performance in school.

That said, there are a lot of people who do well in school who do not come from money. Intelligence is genetic. It can be shaped and molded through activities like school and enrichment. Families that encourage their kids to study and take advantage of programs at school or use the library and the like can help their kids do better in school without money. And if a kid from a poor family is smart and works hard they are likely to do better in school then a kid who is smart and doesn’t apply themselves.

You cannot take a low IQ person and make them smart through enrichment. You can help them perform better then they might naturally but you cannot make them smart. And a smart person can choose not to apply themselves academically and not reach their potential.

Yes, you literally can. IQ tests include a battery of known skill tests that can be practiced

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hear that math and English enrichment programs can provide a leg up and an advantage over classroom peers, and there are opposing views that student's ability to abosorb enrichment content matter not the color of their skin or their economical standing. At the same time, I hear the argument that intelligence is shaped by a mix of factors, including natural ability, motivation, study habits, and access to resources. The argument is that that no amount of enrichment can truly enhance a student's ability to absorb information or put in more effort, irrespective of their social standing or lunch budget allocation. Thoughts?

Definitely! All the top kids have had lots of $$$enrichment.

Families with money are in a position to provide academic support to kids in the form of enrichment and tutoring. Families with more money are more likely to read to their kids and teach their kids things like numbers, sounds, colors, shapes and the like at home. Enrichment starts young and it does influence a child's performance in school.

That said, there are a lot of people who do well in school who do not come from money. Intelligence is genetic. It can be shaped and molded through activities like school and enrichment. Families that encourage their kids to study and take advantage of programs at school or use the library and the like can help their kids do better in school without money. And if a kid from a poor family is smart and works hard they are likely to do better in school then a kid who is smart and doesn’t apply themselves.

You cannot take a low IQ person and make them smart through enrichment. You can help them perform better then they might naturally but you cannot make them smart. And a smart person can choose not to apply themselves academically and not reach their potential.

Yes, you literally can. IQ tests include a battery of known skill tests that can be practiced

Not the pp. you can’t take a dumb person and make them a high scorer. Sure, you can take an average person and improve their score.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I hear that math and English enrichment programs can provide a leg up and an advantage over classroom peers, and there are opposing views that student's ability to abosorb enrichment content matter not the color of their skin or their economical standing. At the same time, I hear the argument that intelligence is shaped by a mix of factors, including natural ability, motivation, study habits, and access to resources. The argument is that that no amount of enrichment can truly enhance a student's ability to absorb information or put in more effort, irrespective of their social standing or lunch budget allocation. Thoughts?

Can’t you just observe that by comparing outcomes in the classroom of kids who study and kids who don’t?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Groups of children of any race have equal potential at birth. Within a homogeneous racial group, some will excel, the majority will be average, and some will be below average. I do not believe race alone favors any child.

However, I worked for years at Johns Hopkins University, Center for Talented Youth. Our research department, working off data from our talent search, proved the most academically talented students fell into 3 cohorts:

- one third were Asian (including Indian),
- one third were Jewish, and,
- one third were everyone else.

Genetically Asian or Jewish students are not more or less intelligent. They simply have cultural backgrounds which place a greater value on education.

Interesting. Can you provide the link to the study?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I hear that math and English enrichment programs can provide a leg up and an advantage over classroom peers, and there are opposing views that student's ability to abosorb enrichment content matter not the color of their skin or their economical standing. At the same time, I hear the argument that intelligence is shaped by a mix of factors, including natural ability, motivation, study habits, and access to resources. The argument is that that no amount of enrichment can truly enhance a student's ability to absorb information or put in more effort, irrespective of their social standing or lunch budget allocation. Thoughts?

Enrichment makes any kid "smarterer" and will definitely give you an academic advantage over others who do nnot engage in it.
Hard work and effort gives kids an almost insurmountable advantage over similarly talented peers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here's at least one minor point of data: Longfellow has quite a lot of kids on their math team and quite a lot of kids taking outside enrichment through AoPS, RSM, and the like. They had a lot of kids take the AMC10. Last year, only 3 qualified for AIME. If money and enrichment programs were the only things needed for high achievements, Longfellow should have had 20+ AIME qualifiers.

The effort still gives an advantage. At the far right end of the tail you start to reach hard caps.
Also all the kids that were going to get AIME went to TJ.
I would bet that the AIME kids are increasing at Longfellow.