Where is your 99.9% WPPSI kid thriving?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, I am so sorry that no one here will answer your question.

Lots of people have mocked the question and debated side points, but I saw several earnest responses. Here they are (in alpha order): Beauvoir, GDS, MCPS, Potomac, St. Pats, Sheridan, Sidwell.

15:02 decries the thread's supposed anti-intellectualism, yet displays shoddy reading habits by not separating the wheat (suggested schools) from the chaff (sidepoints). Regarding subject acceleration, I am not a parent who necessarily wants to see this practice in early grades. I am more interested in having my children learn how to integrate into a new learning environment, develop skills to get along with peers and adults, and master the fundamentals of reading, mathematics, etc. If they have success in all those areas and they are ready for more profound challenges, then we will seek those. A 99.9% score on one test in one day of what I hope will be a long life for my child is possibly too random for me to construct a ten, forty, or eighty year narrative - let alone demand a school that promises subject acceleration on day one.

So if your child has mastered the fundamentals of reading and math at a kindergarten (or first grade, or second grade...) level by day one, you would not seek subject acceleration in reading or math? Learning at a level tailored to him or her should not prevent a child from also becoming integrating into a new learning environment and developing skills to get along with others. In fact, some might argue that an appropriate amount of acceleration is helpful (or even essential) to developing in those other areas. Bored kids do not tend to integrate well or get along with others.

As for myself, I certainly don't expect acceleration on the first day of kindergarten, but within the first months as necessary.

[Anonymous]

Off topic, I know. But I highly recommend Po Bronson's new book, NurtureShock.

It's a very interesting read, especially the chapter about the reliability of intelligence testing/screening for children under the age of 10.

[Anonymous]

I want depth, breadth, richness, and rigor rather than acceleration. And for what I want, you don't need differentiated instruction -- but you do need well-educated teachers and well-designed curricula/assignments.

[Anonymous]

some kids are really smart and learn things faster than other kids

Observation from a teacher:
There are children who really do learn things very quickly, and can apply what they learn, and give it back to you faster than other kids. Their performance is always impressive and given the right circumstances, they can be top students throughout their academic lives. To the casual observer, they are the rockets, and the next best group of kids trail far behind. They are frustrated working with kids who do not move as quickly as they do, and their parents see this.

There are also children who do not at first appear to learn so rapidly, and soak in information so quickly, but they are sometimes, NOT ALWAYS, actually functioning at a deeper level. They are the ones who figure things out, they are the ones who synthesize information and understand concepts at deeper levels. They are, I have found, often not the "best" ( most fluent at an early age) readers. Following their own quest for knowledge, they are not always the kids who are in your face trying to engage an adult in conversation. They are rarely bored because they have the capacity to entertain and challenge themselves.

The above are certainly generalizations, but generalizations with a bit of validity. Both groups do better in a rich challenging environments, with other bright kids. Not arguing against that in any way. Both kinds of kids will be unhappy in a school that doesn't give them some room to grow.

Time and again, though, I have seen the first group (parents and children alike) hold the second in great disdain. If you are looking for a truly challenging intellectual environment for your child, open your mind to the variety of ways this can be accomplished.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, I am so sorry that no one here will answer your question.

Lots of people have mocked the question and debated side points, but I saw several earnest responses. Here they are (in alpha order): Beauvoir, GDS, MCPS, Potomac, St. Pats, Sheridan, Sidwell.

15:02 decries the thread's supposed anti-intellectualism, yet displays shoddy reading habits by not separating the wheat (suggested schools) from the chaff (sidepoints). Regarding subject acceleration, I am not a parent who necessarily wants to see this practice in early grades. I am more interested in having my children learn how to integrate into a new learning environment, develop skills to get along with peers and adults, and master the fundamentals of reading, mathematics, etc. If they have success in all those areas and they are ready for more profound challenges, then we will seek those. A 99.9% score on one test in one day of what I hope will be a long life for my child is possibly too random for me to construct a ten, forty, or eighty year narrative - let alone demand a school that promises subject acceleration on day one.

So if your child has mastered the fundamentals of reading and math at a kindergarten (or first grade, or second grade...) level by day one, you would not seek subject acceleration in reading or math? Learning at a level tailored to him or her should not prevent a child from also becoming integrating into a new learning environment and developing skills to get along with others. In fact, some might argue that an appropriate amount of acceleration is helpful (or even essential) to developing in those other areas. Bored kids do not tend to integrate well or get along with others.

As for myself, I certainly don't expect acceleration on the first day of kindergarten, but within the first months as necessary.

I'm not a teacher, so I leave it to the professionals to let me know when my children have mastered those fundamentals. Many novice parents do not realize that reading fundamentals are comprised of many components, not simply the ability to engage in site reading and memorization. We chose a school - and were fortunate to be admitted - where I think the teachers will ensure that my bright child - remember this thread is about 99.9% kids - gets what DC needs.

[Anonymous]

Thank you.

[Anonymous]

Time and again, though, I have seen the first group (parents and children alike) hold the second in great disdain. If you are looking for a truly challenging intellectual environment for your child, open your mind to the variety of ways this can be accomplished.

Thank you teacher PP for your observations.

I could not agree more with them, including the quoted material. I know this to be true because I personally fall into the second group and I am married to someone in the first group. The first group, I suspect, often does very, very well on standardized tests such as the SAT, GMAT, the multi-state section of the bar exam, etc.

(I felt free to add to the side-bar discussion because I already answered the OP's direct question as to where our child attends school).

[Anonymous]

That's interesting -- I'm both (fast and deep), but don't see much value in quickness unless it enables you go deeper or broader.

And, in many cases, the quickness that parents brag about (e.g. reading, math facts) is basically moot by the end of elementary school (if not earlier -- i.e. 3rd to 4th grade), when most kids have acquired those basic skills and when blasting through assignments as fast as you can often means doing things more superficially or making more careless errors than you should.

In the end, I suspect that we may be talking less about two different kinds of kids/brains rather than different ways of conceptualizing/training intellect. And it really drives me up the wall when parents valorize boredom as a sign of intellect. To me, it's more a sign of not being intellectually engaged -- you're dependent on others to set the pace, provide the stimulus, create the challenge.

So the disdain can go both ways, LOL!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I'm not a teacher, so I leave it to the professionals to let me know when my children have mastered those fundamentals. Many novice parents do not realize that reading fundamentals are comprised of many components, not simply the ability to engage in site reading and memorization. We chose a school - and were fortunate to be admitted - where I think the teachers will ensure that my bright child - remember this thread is about 99.9% kids - gets what DC needs.

Thanks for the clarification. I may be a mere novice parent, but I do also understand that reading fundamentals are complex. We chose a school - and were fortunate to be able to buy a house in the public school district - where I think the teachers will ensure that my bright child - who is beyond sight reading and memorization - gets what DC needs - in the case of reading, subject acceleration.

[Anonymous]

"Valorize boredom as a sign of intellect" is my favorite phrase of this thread. When my children try to run that con on me, I simply reply that they don't even know what boredom is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That's interesting -- I'm both (fast and deep), but don't see much value in quickness unless it enables you go deeper or broader.

And, in many cases, the quickness that parents brag about (e.g. reading, math facts) is basically moot by the end of elementary school (if not earlier -- i.e. 3rd to 4th grade), when most kids have acquired those basic skills and when blasting through assignments as fast as you can often means doing things more superficially or making more careless errors than you should.

In the end, I suspect that we may be talking less about two different kinds of kids/brains rather than different ways of conceptualizing/training intellect. And it really drives me up the wall when parents valorize boredom as a sign of intellect. To me, it's more a sign of not being intellectually engaged -- you're dependent on others to set the pace, provide the stimulus, create the challenge.

So the disdain can go both ways, LOL!

I find this comment to be utter nonsense. Obviously, if a child has mastered whatever is being taught--the alphabet, reading, addition, whatever--and is being forced to sit through lessons on same, then of course he or she will be bored, and yes, of course that is a sign of intellect. A 5-year-old shouldn't be expected to "create his or her own challenge," and I don't think in most classrooms a child will be permitted to "set their own pace" or "provide their own stimulus."

[Anonymous]

PP again--forgot to include that obviously, a child will not be "intellectually engaged" with material that is several grade levels below him or her! Again, it is just silly to say that if a child isn't "intellectually engaged" with material that is way below him/her, that he/she isn't really intellectually ahead, and he/she should just suck it up and find some way to "engage" with what is (to them) simple material. A child should be intellectually engaged with material that is appropriate--they shoud not have to jump through internal mental hoops because they aren't being given an appropriate education.

[Anonymous]

I guess the classrooms you've spent time in and the classrooms I've spent time in are very different. And/or I've watched very different five year olds than the ones you've seen -- left to their own devices, kids are often very intellectually ambitious. And they tend to see setting their own challenges as a thrill rather than a burden.

So the question becomes whether school facilitates or squashes that ambition/internal drive or channels it into something much narrower (e.g. competition). When the "solution" t boredom is to do the same repetitious one-dimensional, no-room-for-independent-thought-type instruction faster, then you're in the wrong school.

Which, of course, is why the OP asked the question she asked.

Your advice is look for differentiated instruction as early as possible and a willingness to accelerate.

My advice is look for a school where the curriculum is rich enough and the teachers capable and empowered enough to create an environment where bright kids become or remain self-starters with their own passions for learning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And it really drives me up the wall when parents valorize boredom as a sign of intellect. To me, it's more a sign of not being intellectually engaged -- you're dependent on others to set the pace, provide the stimulus, create the challenge.

Agree with the critique of this statement. Boredom can be useful at times--I did a ton of creative daydreaming and playing in elementary school under the radar (or at least thinking that the teacher didn't know what was going on). But it meant that much of the point of school was lost since I wasn't being engaged academically. The right school environment for kids who have already mastered the curriculum would allow for academic engagement and flexibility, not just for stolen, secretive moments of playtime at ones desk. I think that's what the original poster (or at least some of us posting) would be most interested in--schools that actually provide something different for bright kids. Again, I'm all for creativity and playtime, but I prefer that school could also provide challenge on the academic side of things.

[Anonymous]

OK why are you testing your child's intelligence? Are we talking preschool? Elementary? Who does this?