<p>With all due respect, fencing, band, etc are poor substitutes for a 12 year old student that is capable of excelling in undergraduate studies, or a 16 year old in graduate school. There are “bright, motivated, top” students and then there are those who are not even on the same planet. Those that think that these latter students can “fill in” time with other activities, or deny their ever expanding thirst for knowledge, have most likely never met one of them. From my experience, they are intrinsically driven to learn and acquire knowledge. It is as natural to them as participating in EC’s and other hobbies are to most students.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I helped raise two of these extreme statistical outliers, and I have to concur with pleasantvalley. Our first child was an extrovert and extremely tall for his age; he started high school at age 9 half-time by special arrangement (a major chore!) and graduated at 14 with a year off in-between because we took a 3-month world tour. He was eager to learn more advanced math and science and had reached the point where he needed specialists. People who complain about the “lost” socialization aspect don’t realize that such children do not usually relate to others their own age anyway – they relate to adults and much older children because those people can hold intellectually-challenging discussions with them.</p>
<p>My younger son was extremely shy, so we tried a different tactic with him, something akin to what’s been suggested here by the don’t-accelerate crowd. That tactic just created a different set of problems. He was homeschooled for a few years, but since overcoming shyness in a group setting was a goal, he really needed to be placed in a classroom setting. He tested into an “elite” gifted program for 4th grade, which turned out to be emotionally taxing and intellectually unstimulating – the worst of both worlds. One big problem is that correct process is heavily emphasized in grade school: getting the correct answer is not enough if you can’t show all your steps because you make intuitive leaps or because you invent your own more-efficient solutions (which the teachers often can’t understand!). The other major factor is missed homework assignments: if you start to listen to a presentation that’s the same darn thing you’ve been hearing now for two weeks and that you understood on Day One, you tend to tune out and daydream. If somewhere in that half hour of re-explanation, a homework assignment is made, it’s as likely as not to be missed.</p>
<p>We did, in the end, find a workable solution: a charter school opened where most lessons and tests were taken online from home, but classroom attendance was required one day a week. Completing those lessons took at most 2 hours a day and he was free to read books or google “interesting stuff” for another 3 hours a day to meet the required minimum time (which we had to sign off on).</p>
<p>But the first semester of traditional high school had him really frustrated, to the point that he was starting to negatively associate formal education with learning. I managed to get him into a college chemistry class his second semester of freshman year of high school on a trial basis. This was the shot of adrenaline that re-established his love of learning, and we both realized that the problem was simply getting out of “process” classes as quickly as possible and into advanced classes where the answers mattered and where teachers actually appreciated novel approaches to solving problems. He decided to graduate high school in 3 years, bypass multiple prerequisites, and get into as many AP classes as possible, simply because such classes were easier for him, with more emphasis on results and less on process and busywork-type homework. He finished high school at the very top of his class, but he could have well become a high-school dropout had he been born into another family less willing to advocate for him.</p>
<p>Absolutely agree LoremIpsum. My son started taking graduate math classes at 15 (he’s a math undergrad) at the encouragement of faculty. How do you “enrich” regular high school classes for someone that is capable of performing at that level? He too would have been a dropout if we had not been willing to go against the grain. Some kids just really do belong in college at 12 (or even younger).</p>
<p>It must be hard do understand the needs of such children but I think that boredom and frustration can be very destructive feelings. I sometimes put myself in their shoes. Imagine (using a more realistic analogy) if at age 12 I had still to be learning my were still ABCs,day and day out (comparatively speaking).I think that these privilege minded children must be given the chance to expand their horizons. We compare their development to the development of regular children, but obviously they develop at a different pace (intellectually and socially).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>While pushing too hard (tiger parent style) is not a good idea, so is holding someone back when s/he is academically bored with the usual curriculum and wants to learn more.</p>
<p>The problem is that very gifted kids have few peers and are as unlikely to find them in a traditional classroom as they are in an accelerated one. They will most assuredly not find their peers in a college with below-average normal aged undergrads as would be the case in the colleges listed in the article. In fact, I don’t know that we can assume that all the children in this family were so very gifted that they needed this acceleration. I know a number of homeschoolers who accelerate their bright, not brilliant kids a few years and ‘help’ them do their college work around the kitchen table. By the way, this isn’t to pick on homeschoolers. There may be plenty of other parents who help their kids on their community college work although I personally don’t know of many. However, homeschoolers often accelerate for reasons that are unrelated to student giftedness but, rather, because they prefer having someone else teach a particular subject such as foreign language or lab science or because their area has grant money for dual-enrolled students or even because they figure, 'If my kid has to take Spanish anyway, why not have him get credit for it? So the kids are enrolled in college and are taking classes like Spanish I or College Algebra that do not represent an accelerated curriculum.</p>
<p>I have no reason to think this family doesn’t fall in this camp. As a matter of fact, I suspect they do. Why? Because they make it clear that their acceleration plan is not just for brilliant kids and they are trying to sell this to the masses. If they were trying to show the proper way to educate a very gifted student, their product would have far less reach. </p>
<p>A few decades ago, one U.S. homeschooling ‘pioneer’ became known for this approach (accelerating bright, but not brilliant kids). Her name was Joyce Swann and her method consisted of purchasing pre-boxed curriculum from a private school (it was important to use an accredited private school she said at the time so the grade level would not be challenged), starting her kids in 1st grade early (I believe at age 5yo) and doing school around the year. If I remember correctly, the private school curriculum had lesson plans for 160 days, so parents could add in a few field trips, missed days for illness, etc. Instead, she advocated doing school 5 days a week, around the year (they may have taken 2 weeks of vacation from school or something very limited like that but I don’t remember) and, in this way, the kids would naturally progress at least 3 years for every 2 they were in school. So, by the time the kid were 10 years old, they could complete all of elementary school. Then, she would enroll them in a not-very-challenging high school at a distance program. They would take about 2 years to do that and they would enroll in a distance college program which she would supervise. </p>
<p>To me, that’s just not only robbing kids of their childhood but it is actually hampering their education because there’s a lot more to education than completing the material in the workbook or box. This has little to do with the issues surrounding extremely gifted children. Based on what I see of this family—choosing material which is not the most challenging, trying to create software for the average family—that is the goal.</p>
<p>Now, to address the discussion above, about accelerating the highly gifted student. There is no simple answer because accelerating them does not provide them with a peer group. By definition, they have a very limited peer group. Acceleration may provide them some intellectual stimulation-- maybe, maybe not because these students will have tremendous insight. (After all, if you are working at college level, the paper you submit for 5th grade social studies is likely as over the top as the one you submit for 10th grade U.S. history, both in writing style and research. ) And there are social and emotional concerns with acceleration because many of them want to make friends among their classmates and those students are years older than they are. So parents may be faced with a brilliant 11 year old who is making poor social choices because he or she is acting like a rebellious 16yo. I do think homeschooling can be a wonderful option for these kids and I do think that accelerating the curriculum to their level does not always mean sending them to college. (For example, you will notice that these ‘accelerate for the masses’ people rarely have their kids take AP courses.) There are enrichment possibilities which are intellectually challenging-- for example, several of my children studied multiple languages outside of school, lots of kids out there do competition math or take JHU CTY classes (things I never even knew about) and, yes, even brilliant kids should be in orchestra or sports teams. </p>
<p>In my extended family, none of us ended up accelerating our kids. Our kids attended the top schools we could find or afford. I moved to live in a top public school district where my kids attended magnet schools. None of my kids ever felt too smart because there were programs and challenges for them. I did not have the money for a top private school (one of my kids did attend a very top private school on scholarship but, socially, it was hard being a minority and the scholarship kid) but my nieces and nephews at elite elementary and high schools are challenged, are learning and do have peers. I understand the complexity of the issue for those parents who make the decision to accelerate a very gifted child because that child needs the challenge—which may be the case for the boys attending Berkeley and Morehouse. It is good that they didn’t send them away to school and I applaud that UCLA allowed the child to live on campus with a parent. But, again, this is a different discussion than the family featured on this thread or the product they hope to mass market which will accelerate kids for the sake of acceleration and put them in mediocre colleges from which they can graduate early.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree. But this doesn’t necessarily mean these kids should take low level college classes (that MOST high academic kids could do well in) and call it “college.” Take them, call it “high school” and get them into higher level colleges as “college” closer to their social peers.</p>
<p>In general, I’m in agreement with 2collegewego. There are some who are super gifted and others who are gifted. I don’t think either belong in an average high school (definitely not a good option) nor enrolled in “college” super early. They do need more in depth, but that can usually be found elsewhere (fitting the student) while they grow up.</p>
<p>YMMV</p>
<p>This is a really lively discussion and I got a lot of great input.</p>
<p>I’ve compiled what I thought were the valid pro and con arguments for accelerating children through education. I left out any arguments I thought focused on the particular academic and non-academic ideologies of the poster or the family. Some posters thought all children should go to top schools but I don’t regard that as necessary for my kids and the reality is that with 20 million students attending colleges in the US, less than 10% will be in the elite schools. I also left out arguments relating to homeschooling and the gifted since I regard that as not the situation I’ll likely ever be in.</p>
<p>One of the top questions that I hadn’t considered was the quality of the colleges. I stated in one of my earlier posts that I didn’t think going to a top school all that important.</p>
<p>Con
MommaJ
The colleges are not top 20
How well prepared they are academically or where they’ll end up in life?</p>
<p>Pro
jonri, julliet
The child who is completing an MS in Computer Science is getting it from Troy a respectable public school.
The child that became a Navy Doctor attended a DO program. Lots of American kids can’t get into any medical school.
The oldest went to Auburn University Montgomery, the Montgomery campus of Auburn. She majored in mechanical engineering and is an engineer now. The second went to the California College of the Arts, and works as an architect. The third one went to Huntingdon College and then med school; she’s a Navy physician now. The fourth one just finished a BA in English at Huntingdon and is now doing an MS in computer science. Two of their children are currently in college now at Faulkner University. The latter two colleges are religiously affiliated, but they’re not bad colleges or diploma mills, just not famous. The truth is, most students across the country (whether they are 12 or 18 when they go to school) don’t go to Harvards and Yales; they go to places like Huntingdon or AUM.</p>
<p>jay555 brought up another issue I was really interested in: whether the children could know what their passions were at so early an age. I’ll have to do research on that but I do know that most college students change their majors 2-3 times while in school and many graduates end up working at Starbucks or a supermarket.</p>
<p>dodgers322, PolarBearVsShark brought up the issue of fitting in college but from the interview I read the kids had no problem assimiliating into college life though of course drinking and doing drugs was not really part of their curriculum.</p>
<p>Finally, thank you, ucbalumnus for another example: [At</a> just 14, UCLA math student Moshe Kai Cavalin has written his first book, ‘We Can Do’ / UCLA Newsroom](<a href=“http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/at-just-14-ucla-math-student-moshe-229359.aspx]At”>Newsroom | UCLA)</p>
<p>I read these posts with interest. I am firmly in the non-acceleration camp. My son was probably a candidate for early college etc…, but I believed that he would be better off attending a traditional high school. It really does come down to your child and your beliefs. For PG kids, there is not a one size fits all solution. There is a saying, “if you have met one PG kid, you have met one PG kid.” Going into high school, he was basically a loner; but managed to flourish socially in HS. He was even voted prom king. I think his social growth was just as important as his intellectual growth. Some of his classes were intellectually challenging, some not so much; but, he always was able to find a balance that worked for him. As some of the other posters commented, he had plenty of time left over for music, ECs, hanging with his friends. Hopefully, we as parents know our children well enough to provide the environment for them that allows them to grow both as individuals and intellectuals. :)</p>