MIT Admissions Dean warns About College Entrance Stress

Parents Forum
601

<p>dmd77: I, like Calmom, have kids on both ends. Although I agree with Calmom's assessment of which problem is worse to have, when I read your posts I can relate as well. Parenting is just plain tough. Parenting an atypical kid is tougher. And being an intelligent parent of an atypical child, which it is clear you are, and having to deal with an inefficient and often unintelligent institution like the public school is extremely stressful.</p>

<p>Although my bright child was not a troublemaker behaviorly, only the well-educated and confident teachers liked him. The others felt threatened and therefore became petty and hateful toward him. It is very difficult for a younger kid who is very smart to respect a teacher who is an idiot at worst, and knows less than they do at best. Yet respect the teacher they must. Both of my bright children have said many times that they wish they were just average because life would be so much easier for them. Average kids can fly under the radar and avoid attention if they choose. Less is expected of them, so when they do well people are happy for them--not jealous. The basic dillemma of the highly intelligent kid in the public school is that they're damned if they do, and damned if they don't. If they live up to their potential, they face teasing, envy, and resentment. It they choose to hold back so as to avoid the above, then they are accused of being lazy and kids laugh at their "failure" because they enjoy seeing them brought down a peg. Having a bright boy is worse than having a bright girl, as many gifted girls navigate this better.</p>

602

<p>I work in a public school in NY and have also worked in a private school in NY and both experiences have been truly horrifying. I would say tht conyat's comments would echo mine. Students are not taught; they are labeled BEFORE they even enter the buildings and then they are moved along. Teachers are not supported, curriculum initiatives are introduced and as soon as the teacher becomes trained, the directive changes. It's so discouraging.</p>

603

<p>Calmom and GFG: of course it is much worse to have a child whose potential is limited by an inability to read. No argument at all there, and a scary and terrible situation. </p>

<p>But the argument I was trying to address is the one that gifted kids don't need additional resources as well. TheGFG nicely summarizes just a few of the issues extremely intelligent kids face. Incidentally, I'd like to point out that gifted kid who made dynamite from stuff he stole from school wasn't my son; he's the CEO of a major Silicon Valley company and he told me the story when he found out I was teaching chemistry. The other gifted kid--the one who made alcohol in the back of the classroom--was telling me how completely clueless his AP chemistry teacher was. Thankfully, I was able to provide an excellent and challenging high school education to my son by sending him to a private boarding school where he essentially completed high school in two years--but I did that when our public school said that all they could see for our son was to send him to the local community college after tenth grade. (Note that my son still managed to miss 22 days of school in tenth grade and more in eleventh--and still was the #2 student in his class--with UNWEIGHTED grading.) (What was he doing on those 22 days? Mostly, SCUBA diving and building robots.)</p>

604

<p>dmd,
Thank you for continuing to carry the torch for what some of us (with much experience working with gifteds) know as possibly the least understood segment of our population, & possibly the most underserved. Yes, it is a myth that the gifted don't need add'l resources -- a myth which is a product of the ignorance which asserts that gifteds self-regulate, can educate themselves, & sail through life on auto-pilot.</p>

<p>For the moment I'll put aside the topic of gifteds with LD. Gifteds without LD still need add'l resources (for learning), but this is what they mostly need (& mostly suffer from if deprived of): adults who are educated about giftedness in its complexity (which extends beyond intellectual giftedness but clearly encompasses it), & in particular the way that gifteds learn, which differs from the norm in the classroom.</p>

<p>The second thing they need most urgently in their educational career is secure adults. That has been alluded to here (in the negative). It has been shown that gifted children thrive best in the following model (with or without add'l "resources," funds, programs, etc. targeted to them):<br>
(1) being taught by those who are themselves gifted. That is the ideal model.
(2) being taught by those who are very psychologically secure.</p>

<p>Obviously it works best if (1) and (2) are combined, but having at least one of these 2 is essential if a gifted student is not to be completely frustrated in a mainstreamed classroom.</p>

605

<h2>"I prefer that schools devote most of their resources to the average student and to mildly learning disabled students. From society's standpoint, we benefit far more from pulling these students up to higher levels than we gain from focusing on our highest and lowest achievers."</h2>

<p>Not to offend anyone, but I wonder if it is the kids at the top end of the achievement/ability spectrum who could have the most biggest impact on society in the future. Will these be the people who will make the significant advances in medicine, science, engineering, arts, social sciences, etc.? </p>

<p>My sense of fairness tells me that it may be most equitable to focus on the middle 95 percent of of the bell curve, and my heart says that we must take care of the challenged kids at the bottom end, but the logical side of me wonders what the payoff to society could be of nurturing the potentially "gifted" kids on the top tails of the distribution.</p>

606

<p>I think the terms "resources" and "funding" are the scare words when it comes to educating the gifted.<br>
I am not really in favor of pull-out gifted classes. First, because gifted children are gifted differently both in terms of their area and their level of giftedness. The second follows from the first, which is that the resources needed to address the needs of these gifted children will have to be very different. Pull-out gifted classes are both more expensive and less effective. A once or twice a week pull out program is not enough to really get the kids working on the enrichment projects while at the same time it does not do anything to change the pace of instruction of the rest of the materials.
Resources for teaching gifted children abound on the internet or in print or other form. What is needed is teachers who, as epiphany points out, are secure and knowledgeable. They should be willing to let students skip materials they already know by testing out and let them work at their more advanced pace using ready-made materials; in the social studies and humanities, they should hold them to higher standards that reflect their potential. This is what happened when my S was accelerated within his classes. While most k-6 teachers are generalists and might be unable to assign different levels and types of materials, they should be able to rely on middle school teachers to guide them. This would not call for more expenditures, though it was call for flexibility in organizing classes and scheduling.
This actually obviates the phenomenon of students feeling left out of gifted groupings. Why did other kids not want to join the advanced group of second graders? Because they took a look at the problems these second graders were working on and said: "Eewww., not for me." When my S was in 7th & 8th grades, the more advanced math & science kids did not form a clique nor were they taunted by their peers. Except for those subjects, they continued to be part of the larger class.</p>

607

<p>When my first grader was in the 3rd grade class for math - there was no clamoring from other parents for their kids to do the same. They knew perfectly well they weren't ready. It would have been different if there had been an advanced math group in his first grade classroom. Everyone would have wanted to be in it and it wouldn't have served his needs. I do like self contained gifted programs or subject tracking (the latter is basically what most high schools have) because they don't really cost the district any money - but even a full time gifted classroom may need to recognize that there are outliers that still need subject acceleration beyond what they offer.</p>

608

<p>Marite, I think the kind of flexible, differentiated schooling you describe is the optimum, and not just for the reasons you raise. Another issue is social development. Pull-out programs don't do much academically, and on the other end of the continuum, self-contained gifted programs, all too often kids end up travelling in the same small circle most of their school career. Strong personality clashes can develop, and kids can have difficulty adjusting to new students and situations. </p>

<p>D. ended up in regular ed most of elementary school, then a pull out program for 4th and 5th, then in the gifted track. It was frustrating to me that it took so long to get her appropriate services, and she spent whole years in lower elementary not learning one new thing in math, for example. Even in gifted, some of her classes were only so-so.</p>

<p>But, OTOH...when she was in 10th grade, her social studies teacher told me that he often used D. as a sort of a buffer to smooth out issues between students who had developed personality conflicts from the years spent in isolation together, because she was more even-tempered and had skills for dealing with a wider range of people. And even though she may not have learned much information or concepts during the early elementary years, I think she did get meta-cognitive benefits she might not have otherwise, because the teachers used her a lot as a peer tutor for kids who were struggling in math and reading. This helped her learn how to learn, basically, by forcing her to think about how to make the material learnable.</p>

<p>I would have much prefered the model Marite describes, where kids get the benefit of both worlds: curriculum and methods appropriate to their intellectual needs and the social benefits of being in a diverse group. I did ask about this when she was being placed initially, and was told there was no way to make it work in our parish--the teachers wouldn't know how to do it, and would just load her up with extra work.</p>

<p>I think teachers being secure in teaching gifted kids (as pointed out by Epiphany and Marite) is crucial too. It's amazing how much threatened some teachers get by kids with abilities that differ from the norm. It's not as extreme as it was (my dad was beaten in school in the 1930s for "defying" the teacher by not being able to tell her how he could multiply big digits numbers in his head, then beaten again at home for being beaten at school), but it's still there. D's first grade teacher insisted that she immediately stop the math work she was doing for fun (borrowing and carrying, adding columns of numbers), because it wasn't "possible" for her to do this without first learning to use touchpoints to add and subtract single digit numbers. Skipping touchpoints was going to doom her to confusion about arithmetic forever. What's amazing about this story is that the teacher had been teaching arithmetic successfully for decades before anyone thought of touchpoints, but faced with a kid who didn't need them, all that experience went out of the window! This lady was an excellent teacher and a fine person, but she just reacted to this situation using how she felt emotionally instead of what she knew as a practitioner.</p>

609

<p>
[quote]
I do like self contained gifted programs or subject tracking (the latter is basically what most high schools have) because they don't really cost the district any money

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Gifted classes usually have lower student to teacher ratios. This is one of those interventions that have been shown to have a positive effect for all students, but isn't being made available to all students. Differences in student achievement at the group level are strongly associated with student-teacher ratio, but some districts still pack 40 or more kids in a HS regular ed classroom. Sometimes pursuing gifted education is the only way to make sure that your child gets what a regular education should be doing.</p>

610

<p>In our school district the self contained gifted classrooms had slightly more students than the average regular classroom. The honors classrooms were also in general larger than regular ones. The school is quite open about it. However some of the AP classes are much smaller since not enough kids sign up for them. (7 in AP Latin for example.)</p>

611

<p>
[quote]
but some districts still pack 40 or more kids in a HS regular ed classroom. Sometimes pursuing gifted education is the only way to make sure that your child gets what a regular education should be doing.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I feel blessed. Our k-8 classes were capped at 25, and usually had about 22 students in combined grades, plus an assistant teacher and often a student teacher or volunteer. High school classes were capped at 30, but some had far fewer than that.</p>

612

<p>
[quote]
but I wonder if it is the kids at the top end of the achievement/ability spectrum who could have the most biggest impact on society in the future. Will these be the people who will make the significant advances in medicine, science, engineering, arts, social sciences, etc.?

[/quote]
Actually, that's been studied and shown not to be the case:
[quote]
Studies of extraordinary performance run a wide gamut, employing memory tests, IQ comparisons, brain scans, retrospective interviews of high achievers and longitudinal studies of people who were identified in their youth as highly gifted. None bears out the myth of inherent genius.</p>

<p>Take intelligence. No accepted measure of innate or basic intelligence, whether IQ or other metrics, reliably predicts that a person will develop extraordinary ability. In other words, the IQs of the great would not predict their level of accomplishments, nor would their accomplishments predict their IQs. Studies of chess masters and highly successful artists, scientists and musicians usually find their IQs to be above average, typically in the 115 to 130 range, where some 14 per cent of the population reside - impressive enough, but hardly as rarefied as their achievements and abilities.</p>

<p>The converse - that high IQ does not ensure greatness - holds as well. This was shown in a study of adult graduates of New York City's Hunter College Elementary School, where an admission criterion was an IQ of at least 130 (achieved by a little over 1 per cent of the general population) and the mean IQ was 157 - "genius" territory by any scaling of IQ scores, and a level reached by perhaps 1 in 5000 people. Though the Hunter graduates were successful and reasonably content with their lives, they had not reached the heights of accomplishment, either individually or as a group, that their IQs might have suggested.</p>

<p>In the words of study leader Rena Subotnik, a research psychologist formerly at the City University of New York and now with the American Psychological Association: "There were no superstars, no Pulitzer Prize or MacArthur Award winners, and only one or two familiar names." The genius these elite students showed in their IQs remained on paper.

[/quote]
Source: NewScientist.com, "How to Be a Genius" - <a href="http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19125691.300;jsessionid=JKDHDABFMEID%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19125691.300;jsessionid=JKDHDABFMEID&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Basically, Conyat is right -- it's not that students with precocious academic abilities shouldn't be nurtured -- of course they should -- but ALL students would benefit from a more individualized, potential-enhancing educational approach. The future Nobel prize winner is just as likely to be the 5th grader who hasn't mastered the nuances of reading and can barely muster a C.</p>

613

<p>Dad'0'2,</p>

<p>I'm sure that gifted children make important contributions to society although, as Calmom points out, intelligence and ability don't go hand-in-hand. However, I think much of America's success and innovation occurs because we educate the masses, not just the elites. In the last 40 years, "elite" has been redefined as "intellectually gifted" but no matter how you define it, the result is fewer children get the best education. </p>

<p>Some school districts have the resources to provide a good education for gifted, normal, learning disabled, and extremely impaired students but there aren't many that can do this. When we expend significant resources on gifted programs with a comparatively small number of students, it is not a productive use of resources from a market standpoint. I think the focus should first be on a good education for as many students as possible.</p>

614

<p>I cannot agree with you, DRJ4. It's not primarily a funding question. It's primarily a teacher-readiness question, which can be accomplished through the credentialing programs without an infusion of significant new funds. It is not necessary to have sacrificial lambs in order to support the common or majority good. And less focus on the kinds of PC-curriculum prevalent in many States, more attention to to professional teacher competencies, would make it possible to have both/and, rather than either/or. Most teachers agree with this viewpoint. </p>

<p>It is very expensive to multiple the kinds of curricula enumerated much earlier by GFG, partly because these involve outside consultants & providers in many cases. (Drug prevention, self-esteem -- the whole 9 yards.) </p>

<p>I was in a gifted program myself in elementary years, also in high school. It was managed by the classroom teachers via differentiated curriculum. No extra funds.</p>

615

<p>Epiphany,</p>

<p>I agree that you can find ways to teach children creatively. Resources in a market sense doesn't mean money alone. It also includes teachers, classrooms, field trips, books, etc. But when you focus a disproportionate amount of your resources on one segment to the exclusion of others, there is an impact on the system. I think we'd be better served if we refocused on providing the best education to the most students.</p>

616

<p>Again, as someone who has taught gifteds in both mainstreamed classrooms & dedicated classrooms, in public and in private settings, in rich and in impoverished educational environments, it is not nearly about all the extras you list or envision -- on top of existing funds. It's not about "disproportionate" resources. It's about Smart assignment of resources, but more importantly, training within the basic teacher training programs. It is also about (for those who never rec'd such training), replacing the stupid PC workshops mandated for teachers with more substantial & intellectually based training. There is excessive waste on nonessentials in public education. I cannot find a teacher who disagrees with me on this.</p>

<p>We'll simply have to disagree on this. My professional experience does not support your premise.</p>

617

<p>Epiphany,</p>

<p>My understanding is that "disproportionate resources" and "smart assignment of resources" are equivalents. In other words, I think we are saying the same thing.</p>

618

<p>Spending per pupil doesn't have nearly as large an effect on student achievement as you would think. Even class size isn't as important as teacher preparation. </p>

<p><a href="http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=18917%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=18917&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Also: <a href="http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n1/%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n1/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>"...teacher quality variables appear to be more strongly related to student achievement than class sizes, overall spending levels, teacher salaries (at least when unadjusted for cost of living differentials), or such factors as the statewide proportion of staff who are teachers.
Among variables assessing teacher "quality," the percentage of teachers with full certification and a major in the field is a more powerful predictor of student achievement than teachers' education levels (e.g., master's degrees). This finding concurs with those of other studies cited earlier."</p>

<p>Another issue is the vast gap between what we know and what we do. Earlier, I brought up the teacher who knew from personal experience that touchpoints weren't a prerequisite for addition and subtraction, but became upset when my child skipped this step.</p>

<p>This happens at the public policy level to the nth degree. Political considerations (such as what curriculum and instruction is popular with the voters) and patronage issues often trump what we know about promoting student achievement effectively. Constance Weaver's book, Reading Process and Practice, has a lot of information about what research tells us about reading instruction, and how these findings are often ignored, even supressed, in policy decisions.</p>

619

<p>Intelligence and success do not go hand in hand. Success depends on some brains, a lot of people skills and a large measure of luck. When I got out of school, I was surprised to find out that I should have learned how to play golf and basketball...which was much more important to my law partners than graduating from Yale (and I found it was much more advantageous to go to the law school that my partners attended than a prestigious one...less intimidating, particularly coming from a woman, and there's value to that old school tie). Intelligence at that point really didn't matter...I was navigating a completely different field...one in which the skills that I had needed for academic success just did not apply.<br>
In fact, the most brilliant person in my law school really could never practice law because he did not interact well with people. It was quite sad, because his brain was breathtaking. He tried to become a law professor but hated teaching. He was in a tough spot...and did not become the great success we would have predicted from his performance in law school. Sometimes too much brilliance can be a curse.
The most successful guy in our area (if success is measured by wealth and power...which is controversial) was a really mediocre student (good basketball player, however) who fell into venture capital by sheer chance. He is not terribly bright, but he was in the right place at the right time, and had people skills honed by team sports and partying his way through college. He was never in my pull out classes, AP classes or anything else...and there you go...life is like that!<br>
My kids play golf:)</p>

620

<p>Haha - I got one of those stress ulcer like things before. I had just gotten back from a late night soccer game at around 10:30 and I had a big test the next day. At about 3:30 AM I woke up with terrible stomach cramps (really really terrible, like you're getting kicked in the stomach non stop). I went to the hospital at around 5, and spent the next two days there. I was out of school for that entire week (I got sick on tuesday). The funny thing, the three other people in the ER next to me, were suffering from the same thing and all of them were MY AGE!!! Now whenever people are complaining about stress, I am the joke of the school because I got what even DOCTORS call the stress induced ulcer like problem.</p>