Anonymous wrote:PP- Your child must be in a school in a high SES area to only have one hour of reading each day. My Title One school has a LA block lasting 2 hrs and math is an hour and a half. One special (resource) per day for 45 mins.[/quo

Shouldn't this be the other way around?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP- Your child must be in a school in a high SES area to only have one hour of reading each day. My Title One school has a LA block lasting 2 hrs and math is an hour and a half. One special (resource) per day for 45 mins.

Shouldn't this be the other way around?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Something that always strikes me is the laser focus on math and reading when people talk about their gifted children being challenged. Those are only two classes in school.
I have a hard time believing that even the most gifted child still knows the entire science, social studies, art, music, PE, and guidance curriculum.
DS is in the top reading group in first grade and he's not really "challenged" with the vocabulary/sight words. But his writing assignments are very open ended, so his teacher and I encourage him to do more than just a sentence or two.
He also this year, in his regular run of the mill public school (Maryland, but not MoCo) has learned about migration patters of the monarch butterfly, the life cycle of stars, perspective in architecture and art, the bones of the body and how his muscles work together, how to read music notes, etc.
So sure, he's not challenged in reading. Big deal. And there are certainly some kids in his class that already knew the life cycle of stars (one in particular knows more about space than most NASA employees I think), but there is enough new stuff going on that kids are always learning SOMETHING.

So why the exclusive focus on math and reading levels? Why doesn't "challenge" count if a child has to work hard on making the painting perspective correct or learning how to read music?

Agree so much. I want my kids to love learning for the sake of learning, and if there's something they are not so interested in, it's OK not to challenge them in that particular area. The point of growing up is you find your area to shine in, and really capitalize on it, right? Otherwise, all these lawyers on this board should challenge themselves and pick up a side CPA.

Of course they will have to get through certain required courses in life, and we want the skills so that they can effectively study and achieve in those areas even if it's not an area of passion. But then they get to move on and really throw themselves at what they are interested in, and learn for the rest of their lives, and love it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP- Your child must be in a school in a high SES area to only have one hour of reading each day. My Title One school has a LA block lasting 2 hrs and math is an hour and a half. One special (resource) per day for 45 mins.[/quo

Shouldn't this be the other way around?

When students start kindergarten behind in nearly every skill needed to be successful in school, they are playing catch-up. Plus, they are constantly being tested since they are behind (if students don't make benchmarks, they are progress monitored which means being tested every 3 weeks or so).

Anonymous wrote:Here's why. My son was never challenged in ES. He started reading at age 3 and read 4-5 levels above his grade level throughout school. He was always in the highest reading group but they were 1-2 grade levels above. He started middle school last year in a private school. 6th grade kicked his ass! He had never done any actual work in ES that was difficult. He coasted and 6 years of coasting causes laziness. Let's just say that he is still digging himself out of a bad grade hole.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Something that always strikes me is the laser focus on math and reading when people talk about their gifted children being challenged. Those are only two classes in school.
I have a hard time believing that even the most gifted child still knows the entire science, social studies, art, music, PE, and guidance curriculum.
DS is in the top reading group in first grade and he's not really "challenged" with the vocabulary/sight words. But his writing assignments are very open ended, so his teacher and I encourage him to do more than just a sentence or two.
He also this year, in his regular run of the mill public school (Maryland, but not MoCo) has learned about migration patters of the monarch butterfly, the life cycle of stars, perspective in architecture and art, the bones of the body and how his muscles work together, how to read music notes, etc.
So sure, he's not challenged in reading. Big deal. And there are certainly some kids in his class that already knew the life cycle of stars (one in particular knows more about space than most NASA employees I think), but there is enough new stuff going on that kids are always learning SOMETHING.

So why the exclusive focus on math and reading levels? Why doesn't "challenge" count if a child has to work hard on making the painting perspective correct or learning how to read music?

Agree so much. I want my kids to love learning for the sake of learning, and if there's something they are not so interested in, it's OK not to challenge them in that particular area. The point of growing up is you find your area to shine in, and really capitalize on it, right? Otherwise, all these lawyers on this board should challenge themselves and pick up a side CPA.

Of course they will have to get through certain required courses in life, and we want the skills so that they can effectively study and achieve in those areas even if it's not an area of passion. But then they get to move on and really throw themselves at what they are interested in, and learn for the rest of their lives, and love it.

I think there's a discrepancy in terminology here. When I say I want my child to be challenged, I don't mean I want her to be tied to a chair and forced to memorize texrbooks. I also want my child to love learning for the sake of learning and she did before she started school. I agree that ypu should find the areas you shine in and capitalize on that. What I don't understand is why that doesn't apply to kids who are interested in reading or math?

If a child is a naturally gifted artist, I would hope that he wouldn't be restricted to drawing stick figures. Hopefully, after showing he could draw stick figures, the teacher would let him try drawing a bowl of fruit, or someone's face, or anything new that he could challenge himself with, because although I'm not artistic and stick figures is enough drawing for me, I suspect that somebody who actually likes to draw would eventually get bored with that. If they weren't allowed to do more I suspect, they would decide they didn't like to draw after all. Yes, they could still learn new skills in PE, but not only did they not learn anything new in the art class you would have taught them to dislike something they previously loved. Yes, they could finish their stick figures quickly and get them out of the way to have time to read, but they would have rather had the chance to learn how to draw something new.

Nobody is saying we should force a first grader who hates math to tackle calculus (or try for a CPA), but a kindergartner who has figured out 3rd grade math on their own, because that's what they like to do, might be allowed to try 4th grade math by the time they get to 3rd grade, a kindergartner who can read fluently shouldn't be limited to "See Spot run", and while I haven't heard of artists being held back like those who have academic strengths, if a kid wants to try drawing something new then get him a bowl of fruit, (or action figures, legos, whatever).

Anonymous wrote:I've read that many schools in Europe and Asia promote giving children challenging work and then reward children by their effort level verses whether they did it correctly. They are more used to challenges as a result. In the US we are more likely to reward correctness instead of effort.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you know anything about child development, it is when a child is challenged that real learning occurs.

Vygotsky calls it the Zone of Proximal Development - that space between what a child can do independently and what a child can do with assistance. This is the area where challenge should occur.

Piaget has pointed out that children go through stages of development and in essence, learning occurs during periods of disequilibrium.

So, for children to learn, they need challenges. However, this does not mean that EVERYTHING must be a challenge.

My nephew who is now at an Ivy did not feel challenged until his junior year of high school. Does this mean he learned nothing in school until then?

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, I want my child to be challenged so that when he becomes an adult he will know the value of hard work. I want him to have a fun, delightful childhood full of wonder, but I also want to teach him how to be independent and successful in the future when he leaves the house. I am not expecting him to be a rocket scientist. I just want him to understand how to work for something.

Growing up, school was too easy for me. I never had homework because I was always the kid that finished it in class. I barely studied for tests. I wasn't a genius, I was just more advanced than the programs my rural school offered. When I got to college I was a bit shell shocked and unprepared for actually working for decent grades. It was a tough lesson to learn, and I think it caused a ripple effect into my future. Lower grades the first couple of semesters of college. Lower GPA resulted in less financial aid for grad school and less options as far as caliber of school goes. Some confidence issues after always feeling so "smart" and "successful" and then changing environments and all of a sudden being unprepared, feeling confused and a bit like a fraud, etc. It wasn't the best transition into adulthood and I just want to help my son avoid that.

So basically, like everything else we do, I want my child challenged to help prepare him to be an adult. That is my job. I hope I can make it fun while doing it, but the ultimate goal is to create a happy, successful functioning member of society.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've read that many schools in Europe and Asia promote giving children challenging work and then reward children by their effort level verses whether they did it correctly. They are more used to challenges as a result. In the US we are more likely to reward correctness instead of effort.

And how the heck are teachers supposed to recognize "effort level" when grading? This sounds like one of those educational theories that sound lovely in the abstract, but in reality is totally impractical.

I'm a teacher and I'm trying to imagine how it would go over if I marked a student down who did his work correctly, but I perceived he didn't work hard enough.