innate ability vs. effort in education

On Jan 2, 2:00*pm, Banty wrote:

Funny that - it's named for the first child born of immigrant parents, the
forefront of the most destructive mass immigration, then decries that very
process.

You characterize the English colonists who came to America (and later
founded the United States) as a "destructive mass immigration". I'd
say they created the greatest nation that ever existed. They were more
advanced than the American Indians they displaced. I don't think
that's true of current immigrants on average.

On Wed, 2 Jan 2008 10:42:08 -0800 (PST), Beliavsky
wrote:

If Indian kids in India (still a poor country despite recent growth)
can do these things, I see no reason why my Indian kids growing up in
the U.S. should not.

However, there is NO indication that earlier means better.

That's a competitive edge that I think is often harmful. Prodigies
burn out. Children need to be allowed to *be* children.

On Wed, 2 Jan 2008 11:11:22 -0800 (PST), Beliavsky
wrote:

Funny that - it's named for the first child born of immigrant parents, the
forefront of the most destructive mass immigration, then decries that very
process.

You characterize the English colonists who came to America (and later
founded the United States) as a "destructive mass immigration". I'd
say they created the greatest nation that ever existed. They were more
advanced than the American Indians they displaced. I don't think
that's true of current immigrants on average.

Advanced in what way? Some advancement is destructive. Think what
might have happened had we adopted living *with* the land instead of
destroying it to build concrete wastelands.

"Beliavsky" wrote in message
...
On Jan 2, 2:00 pm, Banty wrote:

Funny that - it's named for the first child born of immigrant parents, the
forefront of the most destructive mass immigration, then decries that very
process.

You characterize the English colonists who came to America (and later
founded the United States) as a "destructive mass immigration". I'd
say they created the greatest nation that ever existed. They were more
advanced than the American Indians they displaced. I don't think
that's true of current immigrants on average.



In what way were they more advanced?

"toto" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 2 Jan 2008 10:42:08 -0800 (PST), Beliavsky
wrote:

If Indian kids in India (still a poor country despite recent growth)
can do these things, I see no reason why my Indian kids growing up in
the U.S. should not.

However, there is NO indication that earlier means better.

That's a competitive edge that I think is often harmful. Prodigies
burn out. Children need to be allowed to *be* children.



From my experience, those things I learned due to my own experimentation,
interest, observation were more truly MINE and stayed with me. I can't help
but imagine that that is true also for children. I think the more we can
expose, introduce, buttress and support and try to get somewhat out of the
way, the better the learning is. The more permanent and owned by the
recipient.

On Wed, 2 Jan 2008 02:09:11 -0600, "Donna Metler"
wrote:


"toto" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 2 Jan 2008 10:42:08 -0800 (PST), Beliavsky
wrote:

If Indian kids in India (still a poor country despite recent growth)
can do these things, I see no reason why my Indian kids growing up in
the U.S. should not.

However, there is NO indication that earlier means better.

That's a competitive edge that I think is often harmful. Prodigies
burn out. Children need to be allowed to *be* children.


No, pushed, rushed children burn out. Truly gifted kids who do things on
their own, early, generally don't. They may choose to change focus, just as
any other child does, but they don't burn out.

In music, we see the difference all the time. The child who demonstrates
musical giftedness early-good musical memory, good tonal focus,
improvisation skills, early development of beat competence and rhythmic
awareness, interest in symbolic language of music, etc who is allowed to
explore and develop with little restraint or focus until he/she asks for an
instrument (and sometimes, years later, when the option comes up at
school)-those children often either become musicians or stay musical
hobbyists their entire life. And I've seen children who truly want to start
studying an instrument at 3, 4, 5, and who are very self-motivated. But for
every child who I've seen do this, I've seen 10 or more who just want to
play with music for a little longer-and who, at age 7 or so, decide they're
ready and within a year are doing better than most of the kids who started
at age 3.


The child who's parents hear them singing at age 2 and decide they're
super-gifted musically, enter them in private lessons, and start pressuring
them to practice hours a day may look better in the short term. But in
general, as soon as the parent relaxes the pressure, these kids will quit
and never play again. And many of these kids crash and burn quite
spectacularly in other ways, because often these parents are ALSO pressuring
the children to be advanced academically and often in sports or dance as
well, so the poor child has a schedule which rivals many business executives
and very little downtime.

Many programs are recognizing this, and either don't accept children of
"pushy parents" as opposed to those who are really ready, or have group
classes set up which really are just plain a good developmental music
class-but which have enough of the trappings to make parents feel like their
child is on the road to musical success while just plain giving the child
the time to develop those skills that only time will develop-and,
incidentally, allows the teachers to notice those children who really, truly
are ready for more and to get them what they need.

Perhaps I snipped too much of Beliavsky's post

"India's more demanding education standards are apparent at the Little
Angels Kindergarten, and are its main selling point. Its 2-year-old
pupils are taught to count to 20, 3-year-olds are introduced to
computers, and 5-year-olds learn to multiply, solve math word problems
and write one-page essays in English, tasks most Japanese schools do
not teach until at least second grade."

If Indian kids in India (still a poor country despite recent growth)
can do these things, I see no reason why my Indian kids growing up in
the U.S. should not.

Note the children in these schools are being pushed. They aren't just
doing this on their own.

Ericka Kammerer wrote:

For those who enjoy the IQ vs. effort debate...

There's an article in the current issue of Scientific American
Mind that suggests that effort and mind-set are of substantial
importance in determining achievement:

- "In fact, however, more than 30 years of scientific
investigation suggests than an overemphasis on intellect
or talent leaves people vulnerable to failure, fearful
of challenges and unwilling to remedy their shortcomings."

- "Teaching people to have a 'growth mind-set,' which
encourages a focus on effort rather than on intelligence
or talent, produces high achievers in school and in life."

[snip]
I haven't read the whole thread yet, or the article but I have read
about it elsewhere.

One of the examples given was the way children were praised when doing
difficult problems. If they were priased for their effort in solving
them, they tended to have a growth mindset. They would later on choose
harder courses, even if they thought they might do better on other courses.

OTOH, if they were praised for their intellence when solving problems,
they later on tended to choose easier options.

--
Penny Gaines
UK mum to three

Stephanie wrote:
"Beliavsky" wrote in message
...
On Jan 2, 2:00 pm, Banty wrote:

Funny that - it's named for the first child born of immigrant parents, the
forefront of the most destructive mass immigration, then decries that very
process.

You characterize the English colonists who came to America (and later
founded the United States) as a "destructive mass immigration". I'd
say they created the greatest nation that ever existed. They were more
advanced than the American Indians they displaced. I don't think
that's true of current immigrants on average.

In what way were they more advanced?

Technologically advanced: having guns and ships.

(But apropos of another discussion, they didn't have calculus.)

--
Penny Gaines
UK mum to three

"Penny Gaines" wrote in message
news
Stephanie wrote:
"Beliavsky" wrote in message
...
On Jan 2, 2:00 pm, Banty wrote:

Funny that - it's named for the first child born of immigrant parents,
the
forefront of the most destructive mass immigration, then decries that
very
process.

You characterize the English colonists who came to America (and later
founded the United States) as a "destructive mass immigration". I'd
say they created the greatest nation that ever existed. They were more
advanced than the American Indians they displaced. I don't think
that's true of current immigrants on average. In what way were they more
advanced?

Technologically advanced: having guns and ships.




Wait. Guns equals advanced? I must have missed something!


(But apropos of another discussion, they didn't have calculus.)

--
Penny Gaines
UK mum to three

On Jan 2, 12:42 pm, Beliavsky wrote:
On Jan 2, 12:06 pm, toto wrote:



On Tue, 01 Jan 2008 18:36:32 -0500, Ericka Kammerer
wrote:

For those who enjoy the IQ vs. effort debate...
snip

- "And yet research is converging on the conclusion that
great accomplishment, and even what we call genius, is
typically the result of years of passion and dedication
and not something that flows naturally from a gift. Mozart,
Edison, Curie, Darwin and Cézanne were not simply born with
talent; they cultivated it through tremendous and sustained
effort. Similarly, hard work and discipline contribute
much more to school achievement than IQ does."

Best wishes,
Ericka

The Japanese have said this for years:

Changing the subject, I'm not averse to emulating the Japanese,
especially when they are emulating Indians .

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/02/bu...s/02japan.html
Losing an Edge, Japanese Envy India's Schools
Martin Fackler
New York Times, Jan 2 2008

...

"India's more demanding education standards are apparent at the Little
Angels Kindergarten, and are its main selling point. Its 2-year-old
pupils are taught to count to 20, 3-year-olds are introduced to
computers, and 5-year-olds learn to multiply, solve math word problems
and write one-page essays in English, tasks most Japanese schools do
not teach until at least second grade."

If Indian kids in India (still a poor country despite recent growth)
can do these things, I see no reason why my Indian kids growing up in
the U.S. should not.

I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with any of these
activities. But if teaching a 2 YO to count to 20 is only so many
words strung together unless you're also showing that 2 YO each of
those words represents a concept. And if the counting becomes rote,
meaningless recitation at the expense of other things 2 YOs *need* to
know to navigate the world -- things like the rhythm of nursery rhymes
and simple songs, the squishiness of clay, the way sand changes
consistency and properties when it's wet, the way a book leads you
through a story. how donning a firefighter's hat can make the string
in your hand into a pretend fire hose -- then I definitely would argue
against teachng counting to 2 YOs.

Lori G.