Programs for Future Intellectual Leaders

Read "Gifted children: Bright sparks" in the Economist, February 8th 2007.

The article states:

In his state-of-the-union address in 2006, President George Bush announced the “American Competitiveness Initiative”, which, among much else, would train 70,000 high-school teachers to lead advanced courses for selected pupils in mathematics and science.....

Teachers are often opposed to separate provision for the best-performing children, saying any extra help should go to stragglers. In 2002, in a bid to help the able while leaving intact the ban on most selection by ability in state schools, the government (of the United Kingdom) set up the National Academy for Gifted and Talented Youth. This outfit runs summer schools and master classes for children nominated by their schools. To date, though, only seven in ten secondary schools have nominated even a single child. Last year all schools were told they must supply the names of their top 10%.

Picking winners is also the order of the day in ex-communist states, a hangover from the times when talented individuals were plucked from their homes and ruthlessly trained for the glory of the nation. But in many other countries, opposition to the idea of singling out talent and grooming it runs deep. In Scandinavia, a belief in virtues like modesty and social solidarity makes people flinch from the idea of treating brainy children differently.

And in Japan there is a widespread belief that all children are born with the same innate abilities—and should therefore be treated alike. All are taught together, covering the same syllabus at the same rate until they finish compulsory schooling. Those who learn quickest are expected then to teach their classmates.

In China, extra teaching is provided, but to a self-selected bunch. “Children's palaces” in big cities offer a huge range of after-school classes. Anyone can sign up; all that is asked is excellent attendance.

Comment: It seemed pretty clear from my school days that some kids did better than the others in subjects such as science and math, while others stood out in art and music. I am not sure why -- what combination of nature, nurture, opportunity or work -- but it seems that the world agrees with me that some of these kids should be given the opportunity to develop as far as they can in the subjects that interest them. JAD