Re: No Genius Left Behind

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Roger Dodger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...

>> I was thinking in terms of:

>>   (1) Making sure they have all the stuff they need to progress 
>>       on their own (lab equip, oscilloscopes, software, telescopes, 
>>       materials, supplies, misc facilities, whateverthehell they want)

>A good idea, but much of this stuff can be found in university and
>college laboratories.  There's no reason why a younger gifted child
>shouldn't have access to this, given proper supervision.

>>   (2) Top-notch professors (of whatever) to talk/consult with whenever.

>Another good idea.

>"Those that can, do.  Those that can't, teach."

Those that can, also teach.  But they teach why, not how or
what.  Those who learn how and what often have major problems
in even later learning how.  

>A cliche, yes, and one that will upset the professional teachers
>here, but it does have a grain of truth.  In most colleges, the
>requirements for engineering, science, medicine, dentistry, etc.
>are higher than the ones for education.  Part of the problem is
>enginerring, etc. pays a lot better than education.  Better
>funding will help attract better and brighter teachers.

>Also, much of "education" consists of educational psychology,
>educational foundations,

WHAT foundations?  Sorry, they do not know foundations,
and assume that everything starts with memorizing facts or
how to carry out routine.  It was difficult to do anything
about the now not quite defunct whole word method of
teaching reading.  A large proportion of those who learned
to read by memorizing words were unable later to understand
that there was a relation between letter combinations and
the sounds they represented.

        sensitivity training, motivational
>seminars, etc. rather than the course material to be taught.

As the "progressive educators" considered that being with one's
age group and "fitting in" was more important than learning
subject matter, what else could be expected.

>If I was taking high school chemistry, I would prefer someone
>with a Ph.D. in chemistry to teach me, rather than a B.Ed.
>I'm sure that's a common attitude among the gifted and
>"geniuses".  Maybe ordinary kids would prefer, or need, an
>educational psychologist rather than a chemist.

By the time they get to high school, certainly.  The chemist
would try to get them to understand what is happening, instead
of just memorizing and repeating on the tests.  The teachers
were unable to understand the new math which had been taught
to tens of thousands of children.

>>   (3) Access to business, world-class field trips, foreign travel,
>>       the whole nine-yards of exposure to creative culture/influences.

>Ditto.  Consider it advanced placement.

>> Spare no expense.  It will payoff. This kind of program will get the
>> most of your IQ-160+ intellectual raw material.

>> Not like all the 
>> money flushed down IQ-75 NCLB SpecialEd Ratholez, with little 
>> in return..

>Again, the only "ratholez" are those kids who refuse to learn - on
>the grounds that it's not cool, macho, relevant, etc. - despite all
>the classes they have been forced to attend.  IQ has little to do
>with this.

Unfortunately, no.  There are those who just do not have the
mental prowess to go past a certain point.  They may try hard,
but just cannot do it.

        If it takes a million dollars to educate a clinically
>retarded but motivated child into a productive member of society,
>then go right ahead.

>And what of the money flushed down the basketball hoops and
>football goalposts of schools, that could instead be spend on
>labs and libraries?

This is an argument against putting all the tax money into 
public schools.  The majority of the public believes in that
type of expenditure.
-- 
This address is for information only.  I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
[EMAIL PROTECTED]         Phone: (765)494-6054   FAX: (765)494-0558