Mom asking for advice from teachers

Hi Virago,

If you don't mind, I'll respond from two perspectives -- as a teacher, and as the mother of a gifted soon-to-be-four-year-old.

For one thing, about 90% of what kids learn comes from non-classroom sources. Home, friends, TV, books, etc. Therefore your influence is great whether your child is in school or not. You needn't home school per se to provide a wealth of stimulation and information to your child.

My daughter is very bright -- no idea of her IQ level, but from her vocabulary and way of expressing herself people regularly assume she is years older than she is. We have her in preschool, 7.5 hrs a week. There is a mix of ages, 3.5 to 5.5. That's been going spectacularly well for her. She follows her own interests -- she just gave me a treatise on frogs, learned with the assistance of a teacher due to some in-class amphibian visitors -- and she has lots of chances to socialize.

I am not in the least concerned about her intellectual development -- I'm a teacher and a former English major, my husband's a scientist, we could do it all from home if we needed/ wanted to. My main concern, with school, is socializing. She's an only child and very social, and she absolutely loves being able to develop all of these friendships. I have seen development in how she relates to children in general in the months since she began preschool.

My husband was skipped ahead two grades and had a terrible time with it his whole entire school career, with lasting effects. I was purposely NOT skipped in a wise decision by my parents -- had the opportunity and they turned it down -- and had a great time in school with my peers.

Lots of literature has shown the perils of skipping and the social damage that can happen, I can try to find you some cites if you'd like.

Basically, you should be able to find a school that will provide intellectual stimulation for your child at some level, and unless it's a terrible school you should be able to provide the rest yourself. But the social interaction is hugely important on many levels, and that is usually best served by regular interaction with children at a similar stage of physical development.

I just re-read, and realized you are talking about when he DOES go to kindergarten, two years from now, not starting him in kindergarten now. My apologies.

A lot of what I said above still holds true -- you mention classes, that sounds good, I recommend preschool, too. It is a great way to be introduced to a lot of the concepts behind kindergarten in a low-key, low-pressure way. Scheduling, lines, lots of basics like that.

Do you have memberships to a local children's museum or zoo? These are great educational opportunities that you can do with him on your own.

For specific policies, yes, I really recommend that you contact the specific kindergartens you're thinking of sending your son to and asking them all of those good questions.

Good luck!

Sozobe - Thank you for responding. Sending him to kindergarten now? Oh, my, no. I'm having enough trouble adjusting to the fact that he will go at all! I do know the perils of skipping grades, and I'm really not comfortable with that. I have a sister who skipped two grades while I chose to stay with my age group. We both did fine, but skipping ahead is not something I'd like to see my son do for a variety of reasons.

Concerning school readiness - We do have a membership at a children's museum, and they offer classes that he can attend. He also does other organized things several times a week in which he must line up, wait a turn, participate alone and as part of the group, sit still, raise his hand and answer questions, ect. He completely loves it. Preschool is not something we've had a lot of success with. He enjoys it, but I can't find one I like, so far. Like your daughter, he is very friendly and outgoing, and this is one of the biggest concerns I have about home schooling him. He loves being with other boys and he doesn't want to be home schooled. So, I guess I have my answer...

I am probably worrying too much over nothing - but I feel completely unprepared. I don't want him to lose his love of learning, and I worry that he will if he has to do work in kindergarten that he sits happily doing right now. But if I understand you correctly, kindergarten is as much about developing age appropriate social skills as anything. So like I said, I'm probably worrying too much over nothing. I will visit the school he is zoned for, ask my questions, and see how it goes. Thanks again.

Virago

Virago, I believe you are wise to be thinking ahead about your son's early education-- it is likely to be the most important part of his formal learning. You need to decide what kind of school is going to help your child become an enthusiastic learner.

You mention home-schooling as a possibility. Several friends of ours have tried this approach--and, academically, it seems to work well. The social aspect is more complicated--unless you have an unusually large family, and other children are in and out of your house all the time. Even then, your children are not experiencing as wide a range of personalities and interests as they would in regular school. After teaching for 30+ years and helping raise two daughters, I have decided that I would not advocate home-schooling unless there are exceptional circumstances: medical problems better monitored at home; deep philosophical issues; a particular, extraordinary talent in the child that he or she will be able to expand and enjoy better outside the schedule of a school. Also, as Sozobe correctly points out, 90% of your son's learning will be outside of a classroom--and, during his first years, largely in your home. If your child has a particular passion, you can probably help him explore it after his day in school, where he will have been picking up vital social skills.

What makes a "good" school? At the top of my list would be RESPECT for children, an atmosphere that CELEBRATES the pleasures of discovery, the modeling of POSITIVE and ETHICAL social behavior--and, of course, physical SAFETY.

You will be amazed (appalled?) by parents who choose schools for social status and glitzy equipment. You sound far too sensible for this, but I want to assure you that, with good teachers and an atmosphere of industrious excitement, the need for amazing hardware is non-existent. And what kind of message is it to try to surround a kid with children of the rich or powerful? Your son will meet a few of these kids anyway. Also, there is great value in your child's knowing less fortunate children.

I grew up with parents who put me through 20 years of private schooling. The big advantage to this approach was small class size and a lot of individual attention. The big drawback was that my classes were filled with people from backgrounds rather like mine. Until I reached 9th grade, I never went to school with any children of color, and, until college, I never attended classes with anyone who was poor or who spoke English as a second language. Academically, my formal education was very strong--but, until the final years, there was little practice in dealing with the diversity that makes real life--and makes it interesting. I certainly do not resent my parents' well-intentioned generosity: I profited heavily from it. But I surely had a lot of social catching up to do, once I fully realized how insulated my early life had been.

My teaching career was almost entirely in public schools. I was drawn to them. What a delight each fall, not knowing anything about who was coming through my classroom door, except for a rough idea of ages.

If the best school for your son happens to be private, don't hesitate. BUT do make sure that he has plenty of opportunity to be with a larger variety of kids than he is apt to meet in school. Sozobe's suggestion about museum programs is very good. I would also suggest library programs and group activities outdoors. Exercise is tremendously important.

If your child, like Sozobe's, is very bright, this should figure prominently in your thoughts about which school. When I arrived at nursery school, age 3, I had been tested by a child psychiatrist (part of admissions in a city school, even in 1946!), and he had told my teachers (I found out from talking with them, years later) that my gifts were such that I would need a lot of one-on-one with adults, because I thought about topics most children seldom addressed, and I was intensely curious. As it turned out, I really liked my classmates, and most of them seemed to enjoy me--though, probably, some of them felt I was a bit wiggy. My teachers kindly arranged for four different moms, who volunteered to come in MWTF, each to spend a morning hour trying to answer my questions. This was GREAT! These women were so interesting to talk with--and they'd talk about ANYTHING. The only rules were that I had to speak slowly and stay with a topic for a reasonable amount of time. Enough about me! I tell you this only as an example of lucky kid in the school that was then "right" for me. Another piece of good fortune was that, in 1946, moms were more readily available for conversation. If your son turns out to be highly gifted, it will be very important for him to have friendly talk with a number of interesting adults, as well as with children. At least half of my close childhood friends were adults. We would chat; and they'd take me to museums, concerts--for long walks, etc. Not surprisingly, I most enjoyed adults who were enthusiastic and who had special passions in life. They did NOT need to be as intelligent as me. They KNEW a great deal more than me, and we had the pleasure of sharing ideas--which is what education is about! Some of them, now in their late 80's and early 90's, I am still in contact with. Wow, did they do me a lifelong favor. And I never stop telling them so!

If you would like more detailed comments about specific topics, please do not hesitate to ask. I hope that my already-too-long reply is somewhat useful to you.

P.S. Our daughters are now 34 and 37, but we have a new grandbaby to play with. I am delighted to be feeding her and changing diapers, but I can't wait till she and I can talk and share thoughts. Her eyes truly sparkle!

Miklos--

Welcome to A2K. I hope you stay around.

Miklos7 - Hello, and THANK YOU so much for your reply. I enjoyed reading it, and the information was wonderful. I would also like to say congratulations on your new granddaughter!

I am sorry for not responding sooner. I just realized there was more activity on the thread.

It sounds as though you had a wonderful and rich childhood. You mentioned the enthusiasm of your adult friends and teachers. What an invaluable gift to have friends of all ages - it's something I have and something I want and encourage for my child.

Kids know genuine interest when they see it, and this is something my son really responds to. I have seen him with adults who are as excited to teach as he is to learn - and it makes all the difference. He enjoys them so much, and they seem to enjoy him. He thinks about what they say and asks really good questions, and the impression lasts a long time. He is so excited to learn! But too many adults "talk down" to him - assuming he can't understand. I see him in this situation - when the adult who is in the position of teaching at the moment condescends - and I can see the frustration in him. I see the light of interest in him flick off. I have worried that he will meet more and more people in life that are apathetic and that his love for learning will fade, but your post helped me to understand more completely that there are lots of teachers in a child's life and not all of them are in school!

I do feel better knowing that my influence is greater than I had thought, and I really appreciate hearing from someone who taught for 30 years! (You really sound as though you love it - I'll bet you were and are a terrific teacher.) You must have met plenty of eager children (and their crazy over-worried mothers. ) I think we're on the right track so far, and that makes me feel a little less worried.

I am so glad I posted this question and got these really terrific responses. I had felt very unsure about my part in his education and my voice in the school. I felt powerless, but I'm feeling better. I hope I am able to get through Kindergarten.

Thank you again for sharing your experience!

Virago

In case either of you - Virago and Miklos - have missed Sozobe's long term topic about her daughter, here is a link to a vastly enjoyable and instructive thread:

http://able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=17621

Not to skip over Noddy, but I am pretty sure Noddy has seen it and posted there.

"Nursery Education" in the UK is funded by the government from age 3. There is an official "Early Years Curriculum" designed to prepare a child for compulsory reception schooling at age 5.

I have included links for your info.

www.parentzonescotland.gov.uk/

(Click "topics" then "early years" then "curriculum framework")

Cautionary NB's

1. Since "IQ" is based on "Reading Age" , IQ ratings below the age of 5 are usually meaningless.

2. Einstein allegedly did not talk until the age of 4.

A couple of things.

I, too, am a something of a teacher and am the mother of bright kids, all in their 20s.

My daughter had a horrible experience in kindergarten . . . despite the year of school research I did . . . there was no way of knowing that both the teacher and the prinicipal were crazy. She taught herself to read at three. A long story.

I would highly recommend Montessori school. Children learn by doing and are directed by a teacher. They are grouped in three year age levels: 18 months to 3 years; 3 to 5; first through third grade, and third through sixth grade. Kids are expected to help each other. I wish I had discovered Montessori sooner than we did.

Homeschooling began with the left who were looking for an improved quality of education for their kids and trying to allow mothers to spend more time with their kids. It was co-opted by the right who are frightened of Darwin and want that olde tyme religion in the classroom.

I recently meant someone who is involved in homeschooling who demonstrated that there is a third line of parent involved in the movement: pig-headed and prejudiced women who are convinced they are right and the rest of the world is wrong.

That said, you should know that there are home schooling organizations in almost every community. You probably can find one in the phone book, and you can definitely find one on-line.

Parents often share teaching responsibilities and concentrate on their specialties. Here in the Greater Boston area, some homeschooled kids learn science from MIT grads and foreign languages from native speakers.

Homeschooled kids can also attend public schools for those subjects their parents do not feel confident in presenting well. In addition, there are other community resources the kids can use: the swimming pool at the local Y; classes at museums, etc.

Virago, I agree with Plainoldme that Montessori is well worth your looking into. Visit one--and more than once if you are allowed. Observe and, perhaps, get involved. If it's a good school, it will offer some considerable advantages for any child, your bright and curious son included. Kids helping each other is powerful--intellectually and socially. Some of Montessori reminds me of the best of the learning that used to go on in one-room schoolhouses. Have you seen the French film TO BE AND TO HAVE? It is a recent documentary (France's most-watched documentary ever!), and lots of good child-teaching-child moments are shown and celebrated.

well to let you all know, my son is the most intelligent child ever to exist! Is there any parent who feels otherwise? I saw someone who stole my thunder but i will repeat them, IQ's are meaningless! when I was in highschool i dont think i pushed the 80 range. (just kidding) After highschool I held several jobs in the military and then in the civilian sector. I later took an IQ test and did very well. It was better than 100. Those jobs taught me a lot. On the flip side, IQ tests do not judge musical or artistical talent. DONT GET WRAPPED UP OVER A PERCEIVED OR REAL IQ SCORE. at age 3 1/2 worry about the way your child interacts with other children. That is one of the grading criteria for kindergarten. Allow your child to be a child. If he/she develops quicker, don't worry. The schools will equal everybody out by 3rd grade. I went into kindergarten reading 3 years ahead. I finished highschool with a 9th grade reading level. Encourage your child to learn, but make it fun and be an important part of their education. The more parental involvement, the higher the student achievement.

Ralphe, You are largely correct about the inaccuracy of most IQ tests. Sure, there are the more complex (and much more expensive!) intelligence tests that take in a broader range of possibilities, including art and music. There are even intelligence tests that measure reaction time to light, because their is a correlation between the rapidity of this reflex and one's general intellectual potential. BUT, after 30 years of teaching, I came to believe firmly that a discerning parent can usually tell whether her child is genuinely exceptionally bright--and, therefore, has unusual needs in the area of intellectual stimulation. Despite the chestnut about all parents believing every one of their children to be brilliant, this is truly not the case. Thoughtful parents notice a child who is not as quick as some of his playmates, and they realize that this situation also may require a certain kind of stimulation so that their child may enjoy life to the fullest.

I agree with you about the great importance of raising a child who gets along well with a variety of personalities. A person can be very intelligent, but, if he is socially inept or rude, the potential pleasure from his superior wit is not likely to be fully realized.

I also agree with you that a parent should "allow your child to be a child." However, each child is unique--and, therefore, must have different needs met in order to enjoy being a child.

I am amazed by your statement that "the schools will equal everybody out by 3rd grade." A school that tries to level the intellectual playing field for its children is a school that is doing damage to young minds. Some kids are born more intelligent than others, just as some children are innately less intelligent than others. Each child needs teachers who will meet him where he is, respect his individuality, and encourage him to make the most with what he has--whether it's a small ability or a very large one. Good teachers believe in the best for everyone. But they do NOT believe that everyone should be brought to a common level of achievement. If I knew of a school where this kind of "leveling" were the agenda, I'd be trying to shut it down. Equal opportunity, yes! But equal results, most definitely NO! The idea of schools' trying to produce Stepford Children is sinister.

Imagine yourself as a highly-gifted child who spends the bulk of his waking day excruciatingly bored because his teachers are not feeding his mind. This is a recipe for stress and anger.

You note that you began kindergarten reading "3 years ahead," but finished high school "with a 9th grade reading level." Do you sincerely believe that your school had respect for your individual development? I don't know your teachers, and I don't know you, but, on the face of it, it surely seems that--unless there were unusual events in your life outside of school during those years--your school did nor meet your needs and interests.

I most definitely agree with you that "the more parental involvement, the higher the student achievement." I assume you mean parental involvement with both their own children and their children's schools. High-quality parental involvement also means knowing when to butt out--there are times when a kid needs to deal with reasonable issues on his own; and there are times when teachers need to be allowed to exercise their own professional judgment in dealing with a child.

I confess that, although I have graded a very large number of tests over the years and have evaluated a similarly large number of hours of class participation, I find "achievement" a very slippery concept. A kid with no particular natural talent who keeps trying his best has, to my way of seeing, achieved a great deal more than a kid who's very bright and simply coasts. This is why I wince at even the concept of "standardized achievement tests." The value of such tests is about the same as that of the SATs; they tell you a little bit about a very large number of people.

As both parent and teacher, I'd like to know as much as I can about the small number of children I live or work with. That way, I can try to help each one find at least a couple of possible paths towards individual fulfillment. Not everyone is going to find fulfillment or bliss or whatever you want to call being in a constantly-developing, positive relationship with the world. But, it is the job of the parent and the teacher to give each child the best possible start in this direction.

Miklos, I understand and agree with most of what you say. And, you know there is a "but" in here. But, the problems we have with most schools is that teachers teach to the masses. The 80% of the bell curve. The bottom 10% are overlooked because most, not all, but most teachers wont expend their enegry. The top 10% are not challenged enough, and they then get bored and no longer feel challenged. This is not done because of poor schools, but as you know, it takes additional energy that most people dont want to deal with.
as far as your question of me is concerned, When i tried to bring a book in to read (a 2nd grade reader) the teacher told me that i couldn't do it and to stop wasting her time.
Some people who know me now think I did so poorly in highschool because they think i wasn't challenged. I think it was just because I was lazy and somewhere figured the teachers(and my parents) realy cared how i did in school. My parents "acted" concerned. but that was only if i failed subjects. but there was no real long term concern.

Ralpheb, I am hoping that the low energy you ascribe to teachers in most schools is not epidemic! Here, in the boondocks, most of them still seem to give their all, despite the increasing burden of largely-meaningless testing mandated by the state and the feds. But, teaching is a high-intensity profession, and teachers who are not working in a supportive climate can, indeed, burn out and go on auto-pilot.

The teacher who told you, without first letting you demonstrate, that you couldn't possibly read a second-grade book sounds ignorant and rude rather than tired! Although, if she (he?) were a control-freak, she may have been upset at the idea that here was a kid who wouldn't fit easily into her pattern. Whatever her problem was, she should be ashamed of herself.

So maybe you didn't get much help coming into intellectual focus when you were in high school, but, hey, as you point out, your jobs in the military and elsewhere did the trick! If we're lucky we keep learning something all our lives. This still doesn't excuse the quality of the teaching you received at your school. Good teachers might have been helpful and fun for you; instead, you succeeded in spite of your teachers. This speaks well for your energy, but not for theirs!

I apologize for the long absence. Miklos, I have not seen the movie you mentioned, and worse, there are no Montessori schools in my area. I can't tell you how frustrating that is. The more I read about Montessori, the more convinced I am that my son would do really well there.

Recently I spoke with a very nice first grade teacher who teaches at the school my son is zoned to attend. The elementary school (grades K - 5) does not offer gifted classes. I only had a moment to speak with her, but I asked why they didn't. She told me the kids realized the "red" classes were for the above average kids while the "blue" classes were for below average kids. Problems arose, so they discontinued the gifted classes. While I see the problem and wouldn't want any child to have a poor self-image, this didn't seem to me to be an effective answer. Shouldn't kids be tested and grouped according to their abilities? This seems to me to be the respectful thing to do for every child. Giving up and grouping them all together won't meet the needs of my son, and it won't meet the needs of another child who may be struggling. I didn't understand this line of reasoning, but I didn't have an opportunity to continue the discussion at that time.




So am I. I imagine this would be an awful experience for every child who attended such a school. There is just no scenario in which I would let that happen.




Miklos, I'm glad you understand, as I've met a few people who either didn't or chose not to. Happily, most of the teachers I've spoken with have been wonderful.

Right now, my son is the most enthusiastic, eager, joyful, friendly child. I don't want that to change - I want his time in school to be satisfying and exciting. It's why I am asking questions of teachers. I want to be as knowledgeable as I can be so that I can make the best decisions. So that he keeps his love of learning all his life.




The more I read and speak to people who know, the more I'm finding that this is true. The testing interferes with teaching. Hmm. Now this is a burden I hadn't expected to come across. I'm wondering what else is a hindrance.

It seems to me that there are so many variables that strictly comparing one school to another is useless. One thing seems constant, though. Kids do better in schools where there is real parental involvement. Hopefully, by the time my son goes to school in 1.5 years, I'll have all my answers.

Thanks for your help!

Virago

Virago, Welcome back! As there are no Montessori schools in your area, and your son is likely to be going to your local public school, your meeting the very nice first grade teacher is fortuitous.

The Red Kid-Blue Kid issue is ridiculous. Any school that openly labels children as Red-Blue or Shark-Guppy or Hare-Turtle is, understandably, going to have upset children and parents on its hands. Having been burned by a clumsy sysyem once, this school is unlikely to try one again--even if it were smoothly set up.

But, do not despair. If the nice woman you met is typical of her elementary school, your son will have a really good start to learning. Also, good teachers know how to individualize work for each student, which is probably the best way to help the gifted, the less quick-minded, and everybody else.

It would be counterproductive in many ways were you to assume that your local elementary school cannot provide reasonably well for a gifted child. You may be pleasantly surprised. Good teachers are often far more creative than the sytems they work for. The Red-Blue business was likely devised by administrators, not teachers!

In any case, as you have a gifted child, you are going to be supplementing what goes on at school, wherever your son goes to school. The only variable is how much. Unless your son's elemtary school does nothing significant to address his intellectual and social needs, he should be fine there--with you providing backup at home.

As you have perhaps discovered already in your research, a great move you can make for your son right now is to find him a well-behaved playmate, of either sex, who is similarly gifted. These two can be vital mutual support, as each will recognize the other as someone who "gets it," and, therefore, is fun to play with.

Please keep in mind that gifted kids are gifted in different ways, but, in getting them together, this makes no difference. In fact, it's desirable, as they can teach each other new tricks!

If you have further questions, please don't hesitate to ask. I'll do my best.

As usual, I utterly agree with Miklos. (Have I said how happy I am to have you around, Miklos?)

And yes, welcome back Virago!



I understand how this would seem to be the case, but it is not always so. When I was in graduate school, "tracking," or grouping kids accordining to ability, was coming under severe scrutiny. While it was expected to benefit kids, that was not what the data was showing.

I don't remember all of the drawbacks (a quick search could probably refresh my memory if you're interested), but one problem was that essentially an assessment test in kindergarten cemented a child into one or another track for his or her school career. If a child was assessed to be on the lowest rung, he or she would stay there. Middle rung, he or she would stay there. This was contrary to more heterogenous groups, where there was much more movement over the years. A middle rung kid could become high rung, etc.

Meanwhile the highest rung kids didn't actually do that much better than without tracking, they just were kept from enriching the lower-rung kids.

My own experience thoroughly bears this out. In the first six years of elementary school, I had two teachers; one for 1-3 grades, one for 4-6 grades. Each class had about 30 students in an almost 4-year spread and a vast range of abilities.

We thrived, all of us; a disproportionate number of us were in gifted and talented programs once we went on to Jr. High School, though we didn't have that specifically at the elementary level. We had a couple (1-3, 4-6) of great, creative, intuitive teachers, and peer teaching was also a big part of the picture. The older kids would help the younger kids, benefitting both themselves (no better way to learn than to teach, plus great self-esteem builders) and the kids they helped (peer teaching/ mentorships have been shown to be particularly effective.)

Just some food for thought. I very much agree with Miklos that what is most important is the skill level of the individual teacher.

Sozobe, Thank you for the kind words. I always enjoy reading YOUR posts, because they are well-written, to-the-point, and so eminently sensible.

The infomation you supply on tracking is fully correct. Heterogeneous classes are much better for all kids. Tracking by ability, especially early tracking, is dangerous to children because it is often innaccurate--and it can become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

I once taught in a school with FIVE levels of tracking; the model for this system came from Michigan, and I'm sure that Michigan is still trying to live it down! My favorite sections were the Level Fives, in which the assumption had been made that, even with a lot of one-on-one, these poor souls would never even learn to change a flat tire. Well, these kids could not only change tires; many of them could rebuild an entire car. And they had story-telling skills that shamed almost any so-called Level One student. ["I don't know why that deer was named Bucky, because she was a doe, but, anyway Bucky lived in old Joe's trailer, and he drove 10-penny nails through the outside wall, so that she could pick off the potatoes he stuck on the points for her. You know, females don't like to stoop if they don't have to. She was a sweet thing, and she lived with Joe for two years, until she came into season late that fall. Had her fawn in Joe's dooryard..."] These classes were a far-less-than-even trade; I taught them how to put their stories and plans into paragraphs, but they taught me about the vitality and variety of life on our peninsula--and tipped me off to some great trout and partidge spots! I realize that it's not a good idea to make generalizations, especially about people (the very process that was responsible for five-level tracking!), but, year after year, I found these kids to be the most mature and trustworthy in the entire school. I once ran a story-from-photo class with them, and I'd turn them loose, three-at-a-time, unaccompanied, to take pictures in the village, where they'd share my beloved Leica. They were always back on time (with great pictures!), and they treated my gear as if it were gold. I loved how observant these young men and women were; they would have been immensely valuable to the Level One students, who were, many of them, leading overprescribed and overprotected lives. Eventually, there was a teachers' outcry against the tracking, and all the kids DID work together. Some parents of "Level One children" screamed about the dangers of "rough kids" pulling theirs down, but that never happened in the new heterogeneous classes. There remained de facto college-bound tracking for a handful of children who took nothing but AP classes, but, hey, they were doing this to themselves, and most of them must have wondered whose life they were living anyway--a good question to ask!

I am convinced that enrichment comes in many flavors--and that the most significant enrichment occurs outside the classroom. As long as a school is friendly to children, parents will have a good base on which to supply their kids with whatever they might need fully to be themselves.

Excellent point about how the enrichment goes both ways, Miklos, and also about the self-fulfilling prophecy. I remember that last one was a particularly large factor in the anti-tracking papers I wrote in grad school...