Ainan's latest favourite subject.

One of Ainan’s most evident characteristics is his capacity to surprise. He is always managing to find new ways to surprise me, even now that he is 12 years old and I have had 12 years of surprises. He still manages to find new ones.

One of his latest surprises was his reaction to this semester’s selection of courses on his American Degree Programme. Which course do you think is his favourite? I am not going to tell you which courses he is taking, because I want you to imagine out of all possible courses, which one Ainan might consider his favourite. Have a good think about it.

Well, his favourite course this semester is World Civilization. That is basically an ancient history course which he is taking to balance his more scientific interests (other courses this semester include a Chemistry course and a Calculus course, among others). I was surprised to learn that he liked this course so much and so I asked him why. “Because it is new.”, he said simply.

So, Ainan is discovering a liking for more humanistic pursuits than the scientific ones that have preoccupied him all these years. I am pleased at this discovery for it promises that he will end up much more balanced in his education. So far he has studied courses in the areas of Chemistry, Physics, Maths, Biology, Computer Programming, Economics, Computer Animation, English and, now, World Civilization. This is already quite a broad selection of subject areas, but it shall widen much more in the years to come. I hope to see him become broadly knowledgeable, as well as well equipped in his primary interests. That, I believe, would make for a much more effective person.

His World Civilization course is interesting in the way it invites Ainan to think about history and civilization. He is working with a group of his fellow students on designing a civilization, including its own mythologies. He will have to present this invented civilization to his fellow students in class. To my mind, this is a very good challenge to set the students, for it invokes creativity, imagination and the ability to have insights and understandings about the nature of civilizations and what makes them work. It is certainly a much more interesting way to teach students than a standard lecture format. What is most notable about it is the cooperation with other students that it involves. This is, I feel, a good skill for Ainan to develop, since he must learn to work with others, to a common goal. This is a situation which is not natural to many gifted children, accustomed as they are, to thinking alone and working in solitude.

I am happy to hear the occasional remark from Ainan about less familiar (to me) events in history and civilizations I know very little about. It is heartening that, it seems, he will end up with a more comprehensive view of the world than I managed to acquire in my own education. Certainly, if he continues to study broadly as well as deeply, that is a likely outcome. Of course, it is much to his advantage that he is studying an American degree rather than a British style one. In a British degree specialization is encouraged at the expense of breadth. Such an education leads to incomplete understandings of the world. That is not the likely fate of Ainan.

I will write more in future of his reaction to his course selections. It is revelatory to discover what he likes and what he doesn’t. I have learnt that this is not as predictable as one might have thought. Then again, I shouldn’t really have been surprised by that, should I?

Posted by Valentine Cawley

(If you would like to support my continued writing of this blog and my ongoing campaign to raise awareness about giftedness and all issues pertaining to it, please donate, by clicking on the gold button to the left of the page.

To read about my fundraising campaign, please go to: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2011/01/fundraising-drive-in-support-of-my.html and here: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2011/01/fundraising-drive-first-donation.html

If you would like to read any of our scientific research papers, there are links to some of them, here: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2011/02/research-papers-by-valentine-cawley-and.html

If you would like to see an online summary of my academic achievements to date, please go here: http://www.getcited.org/mbrz/11136175To learn more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, 10, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, 7 and Tiarnan, 5, please go to: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html

I also write of gifted education, child prodigy, child genius, adult genius, savant, megasavant, HELP University College, the Irish, the Malays, Singapore, Malaysia, IQ, intelligence and creativity.

There is a review of my blog, on the respected The Kindle Report here:http://thekindlereport.blogspot.com/2010/09/boy-who-knew-too-much-child-prodigy.html

Please have a read, if you would like a critic's view of this blog. Thanks.

You can get my blog on your Kindle, for easy reading, wherever you are, by going to: http://www.amazon.com/Boy-Who-Knew-Too-Much/dp/B0042P5LEE/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&m=AG56TWVU5XWC2&s=digital-text&qid=1284603792&sr=8-1

Please let all your fellow Kindlers know about my blog availability - and if you know my blog well enough, please be so kind as to write a thoughtful review of what you like about it. Thanks.

My Internet Movie Database listing is at:http://imdb.com/name/nm3438598/

Ainan's IMDB listing is at http://imdb.com/name/nm3305973/

Syahidah's IMDB listing is at http://imdb.com/name/nm3463926/

Our editing, proofreading and copywriting company, Genghis Can, is athttp://www.genghiscan.com/This blog is copyright Valentine Cawley. Unauthorized duplication is prohibited. Use only with permission. Thank you.)

Was Winston Churchill real?

You might think this a funny question. However, it was a question that was asked of 3,000 Britons recently in a survey by UKTV Gold, of their tv viewers.

In the survey, the viewers were asked to judge whether various people were real or fictional. You might think this a simple enough task - but it proved to be rather more difficult than you might expect.

23% of the respondents thought that Winston Churchill was a fictional character. You read that correctly - almost a quarter of Britons don't believe Winston Churchill actually existed. They think someone made him up.

Even more intriguingly, 58% of them thought that Sherlock Holmes, the fictional, pipe-smoking, superhuman detective of Arthur Conan Doyle, was a real, formerly living, detective.

I found this profoundly odd. It means that Britons today are more prepared to believe that a work of fiction was real, than that the wartime Prime Minister of Britain, ever existed. It means that, for them, television (through which they no doubt encountered Sherlock Holmes) was greater proof of existence, than a permanent place in the history books.

There is more. 47% of them thought that Richard the Lionheart - the 12th Century crusading King - was a fictional monarch. Even more curiously, 65% of them thought that King Arthur (for whom there is basically no tangible evidence) was a real man who led a round table of Knights at Camelot.

Thus to have been a great King, is less likely to win believers in one's existence, than to have been a great story.

Florence Nightingale never existed, according to 27% of Britons. That is some thanks for all her nursing efforts in the Crimean War.

However, music is so powerful that it has conjured Eleanor Rigby into existence for the 47% of respondents who believe in her reality. She was, of course, a creation of the Beatles to make a musical point.

3% thought that the famed author Charles Dickens was himself a work of fiction. However, 33% of the very same people thought that Biggles, the fictional pilot of W.E Johns, really flew.

The top ten list of generally held fictions, that were actually believed to be real is as follows:

1) King Arthur.
2) Sherlock Holmes.
3) Robin Hood.
4) Eleanor Rigby.
5) Mona Lisa.
6) Dick Turpin.
7) Biggles.
8) The Three Musketeers.
9) Lady Godiva.
10) Robinson Crusoe.

The top ten list of real people who were thought to be fictional creations is:

1) Richard the Lionheart
2) Winston Churchill
3) Florence Nightingale
4) Field Marshal Bernard Montgomery
5) Queen Boadicea
6) Sir Walter Raleigh
7) Duke of Wellington
8) Cleopatra
9) Mahatma Gandhi
10) Charles Dickens

Education is not what it should be in many parts of the world (perhaps all). Clearly, in Britain today - and for some time - education is not fulfilling its purpose of giving people an understanding of the world. Britons today, as this survey shows, quite often cannot tell fiction from reality. They don't know what the real world is - or has been. How, then, can they make realistic decisions in this world, when they don't even know what is real and what is not?

Looking at the fictional characters that they thought were real, I am struck by how unlikely it seems that they could have thought them real. There is something impossible about most of them. Yet, they were believed to be real.

Of course, there are a couple of questionable entries in the "fiction" list which blurs matters somewhat. Someone really did sit for Leonardo da Vinci, to be painted - and her name was Lisa, so perhaps we can discount that one. (Even if the painting wasn't true to her - we will never know). Also, there really was a "Dick Turpin". Unfortunately, he wasn't the one who did what was attributed to him - so in that sense it was fictional. These exceptions aside, however, it is all rather worrying.

Most of the viewers will be young people. What kind of world will they create when they become the backbone of their society? Clearly, they are poorly educated - and perhaps even not very bright as well.

It doesn't forbode well for the UK. However, other nations were not surveyed: would they similarly come off poorly? Is this a global problem for our poorly educated global youth? I rather hope it is not. I would like to think that, in most countries, the young people could tell the difference between a book (ie. Great Expectations) and its author (Charles Dickens). At the very least they should know which one speaks of people who really existed.

(If you would like to learn more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, a scientific child prodigy, aged eight years and one month, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, four years and seven months, and Tiarnan, two years exactly, please go to: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html I also write of gifted education, IQ, intelligence, the Irish, the Malays, Singapore, College, University, Chemistry, Science, genetics, left-handedness, precocity, child prodigy, child genius, baby genius, adult genius, savant, gifted adults and gifted children in general. Thanks.)

A lesson in economics for a child.

My childhood was not like my son's is turning out to be. For a start his is in a different country and this makes more difference than I had thought it would.

Today is an example. At school a circular was sent around to all the children. It was a slip of paper, rather oddly, containing economic information. It told these primary school children that prices were to rise in the school food outlets, "owing to the rise in the price of flour". I found this stupefying. Not even children are immune to economic alarm. Here they were being told a) their food prices were going to rise and b) a reason and justification for why this was to be. Amazing. I don't remember my childhood being like that. We were completely insulated from economic information. Maybe that is why we didn't all grow up being obsessed by money-making at the expense of any other social or human value.

I can see, now, why so many Singaporeans grow up to be concerned with money and money alone. The indoctrination that money is everything begins in primary schools with such subtle lessons as an economics lesson masquerading as a slip of paper.

I have had a good look back at my own childhood and I don't remember a single corresponding incident. However, this may be because in government schools in my childhood the food was free to all. There were no price rises because there was no price in the first place. It was regarded as a social boon that every child, no matter from what background, or however poor they might be, would receive at least one "good" meal a day. I say "good" because the food was, of course, of institutional quality.

It has taken my son's experience with this financial notice, from his school, to awaken me to how sheltered children in Britain were in the seventies and eighties, from economic realities. Is this a good thing, or a bad thing? Well, it depends what you value. If you value a child's peace of mind and ability to relax and enjoy the only period of their life that could reasonably be free from worry (if only we would let them be)...then I think it is best that children are not troubled by economic understanding. It would only add to their worries. However, if you wish to create a nation of people who begin to be concerned with money at the earliest possible age and who will go on to make it their primary concern throughout life - then, by all means, send little price rise notices and explanations around the school for the children to become economically awakened.

This method seems to work. I had a conversation about economics today with Ainan. (A very unusual occurrence.) He was rather surprised at the contents of the slip of paper and felt a need to discuss it with me.

The economic awakening has begun. To where will it lead?

(If you would like to learn more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, a scientific child prodigy, aged eight years and one month, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, four years and seven months, and Tiarnan, two years exactly, please go to: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html I also write of gifted education, IQ, intelligence, the Irish, the Malays, Singapore, College, University, Chemistry, Science, genetics, left-handedness, precocity, child prodigy, child genius, baby genius, adult genius, savant, gifted adults and gifted children in general. Thanks.)

The Open University is closed.

The Open University is a UK institution formed with the idea of opening up a tertiary education to people who would not otherwise be able to access it. Many have taken degrees while holding down full time jobs, pursuing their studies, at a distance, without having to be resident in a University (though they do have short-term residential modules, too). All in all, it sounds like a good idea...but it isn't flawless.

I decided to see just how open, the "Open" University really was. I wrote to them, telling them of Ainan, 7, and his need to continue his studies at a University, in the near future. How near that future is, depends on how long I can keep him satisfied at home, on my own resources - for no educational provision that he is receiving on a formal basis is presently meeting his needs. Obviously, I will not be able to keep him stimulated indefinitely: my home, for one, lacks a lab and there are many things I cannot teach him purely from the context of a book and his Dad. He teaches himself many things, too - but again, there are limits - for we don't have personal access to the equipment he would need to develop the practical side of his gifts.

Therefore, I am looking at the University issue, for Chemistry. I thought that the Open University might make it relatively uncomplicated to move on to higher studies since their courses were specifically designed for distance learning. Ainan would be able to pursue a degree with them, while handling whatever other matters he needed to attend to, here in Singapore. That was the idea, anyway.

However, after a few days, I received the following reply:

Dear Mr Cawley

Thank you for your email.

Study with the Open University is normally open to individuals over eighteen years of age; however, we do have a Young Applicants in Schools Scheme (YASS). Unfortunately, Singapore is outside of the area in which the YASS scheme is offered and therefore I am afraid we are unable to offer any study opportunities for your son.

I replied to them, but they didn't get back to me.

Thus, despite describing themselves as "Open" - and despite having been founded on a principle of opening up education to new people who do not have access, Ainan was refused on the basis of age - and bureaucracy. There is an allowance in their scheme for Young Applicants - but that only applies to the UK as far as I am aware.

It seems to me, that often with institutions, the spirit with which they were founded gets lost along the way - so it seems with the "Open" University. They were brought to being with an admirable purpose, but it is not true to say that they still fully serve it. Ainan is outside the norm with regards to his academic needs - a University founded on serving those who do not fit the norm, really, really should have made an exception to any rules that stand in his way: that would have been serving the spirit with which it was founded - and not the letter of any bureaucratic encumbrance that has since accreted.

Not many children need to go to University significantly early (except perhaps in America, where the academic demands ramp up much more slowly than in Europe) - so it should not be beyond universities to make the few exceptions that need to be made to allow these prodigious children to flourish. It costs them nothing to oblige and support these children - but there is a very high price to pay for their societies, in not supporting them: a price of wasted gifts.

So, as ever, I suspect, with any parent of a prodigious child, I am still seeking a better academic fit for his needs. The matter becomes more urgent over time - for as his abilities grow, so does the demand in having to meet them. At some point, it may not be tenable to do so alone without the backing of an appropriate institution. We will see. In the meantime, I will do what I have always done: whatever I can.

(If you would like to read more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, a scientific child prodigy, aged seven years and seven months, or his gifted brothers, Tiarnan, seventeen months, or Fintan, four years and no months, please go to: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html I also write of gifted education, IQ, intelligence, child prodigy, child genius, baby genius, adult genius, savant, the creatively gifted, gifted adults and gifted children in general. Thanks.)

Educational testing and intellectual performance

Why do education systems test their students? Usually they want to find out "how good" their students are. Does this work? Does constant testing improve the students, or does it prevent them from learning?

I have written about the problem of over-testing in the UK (and Singapore, indirectly), recently. My contention was that obsessive testing of students would get in the way of their real education, by focussing the students upon an ever smaller set of knowledge, driving them away from a true pursuit of education and learning. I offered this as an opinion yet, I have found evidence, now, that it is true. The more you test, the less you get, in terms of student development. England tests their state school students over 70 times between the age of 7 and school leaving age. What effect does this have on the students?

Well, a recent study of over 10,000 British students tested at the age of 11 and 12 for cognitive performance has produced alarming results. The research was performed by Michael Shayer of King's College London and published in the British Journal of Educational Psychology. The study showed that in their cognitive and conceptual development, today's 11 or 12 year olds from Britain were TWO or THREE years BEHIND their counterparts from 1990. This means that, in real terms, young British children have regressed intellectually compared to children of 15 years before: their actual ability to think and reason is impaired by comparison. Think about what a three year difference at age 12 means: it is a 25% difference - which, if it were IQ, would indicate a 25 IQ point difference. This is a HUGE drop in intellectual function, for a whole nation.

In the same period, in which the drop occurred, Britain became a test-mad nation. The students were subject to endless tests beginning at seven on their performance on every little matter of schooling. The idea behind the tests was to guarantee that students were adhering to "standards" - but what, actually has happened? In real terms, Britain's kids have got stupid, by comparison to their former intellectual performance. Is there a connection? Does excessive testing drive children away from true education? Does it prevent children from actually growing intellectually? This situation in Britain would seem to support my understanding that excessive testing will get in the way of true education.

When I was in school, there was very little testing other than formal examinations such as O level and A level. So, too, the children from my generation were demonstrably smarter than the children of today's generation: is there a direct connection? Were we freer to think and grow and learn owing to less testing? In my heart, I feel so. I was one of many students who studied because we loved to think and to learn. I was not studying because there was a test coming up - because there just WASN'T a test coming up. It was a better way to learn, I think.

The research threw up many alarming results. One was that the gender gap had vanished. Girl students were traditionally better than boys, being more studious and less disruptive by nature - but that advantage has gone, too, with girls showing great deterioration in intellectual performance.

In the new Britain, one in six British people do not have the literacy skills expected of an average 11 year old. You would think that was bad enough - but it gets worse: half of British people do not have basic functional numeracy. That's right: 50% of all British people today are not sufficiently numerate.

What is the real world effect of such educational and cognitive declines? Well a review by Leitch, found that a 1 % increase in literacy in a population, resulted in a 1.5% increase in GDP, for the nation - and a 2.5% increase in labour force productivity. Thus even slight changes in the educational standards of a nation have noticeable real world effects on the standard of living and quality of life, in that nation.

Education should be about learning and growing, in all the ways that are suited to the child. As soon as it becomes about bureaucratic measurement - as it long has become in Britain and some other nations - then, I contend, that is a nation that will fall into decline - because in such a test obsessed environment there is no time for, or attention given to, real learning, real growth, real insight.

The Shayer study is strong evidence that education conducted in the way it is conducted in Britain - as an incessant round of tests that bedevils pupils throughout their education - simply does not work to bring about real intellectual growth. Britain's pupils are now demonstrably stupid compared to their forebears of only fifteen years ago. A drop of 25% in cognitive performance is a massive decline. It is almost the difference between a moderately gifted student and an average one. It is a huge disparity.

It is time, for all countries that are obsessed with testing and measurement of their students, to throw that aside in favour of a classroom that favours true learning by the student: deep, exploratory, insightful learning that will bring forth the intellectual leaders of the future. The alternative is national decline and failure.

Will Britain choose to do anything about this situation? I think not, for one can read in the reaction of their media the true attitude towards the situation: indifference. Not one single main British media outlet covered this story about the Shayer study. Only one magazine, the Spectator, wrote of it. All the British newspapers ignored it. So, where does this leave the British people? They are left ignorant of the true state of decline in the mental quality of their children and in the education they have been receiving. Yet, these children are the future of Britain. Based on their decline in ability, at age 11 or 12, one can safely say that in twenty to thirty years, when this generation of children are in their thirties and forties, that Britain will have declined significantly as a nation. It cannot be otherwise, when the quality of minds on which the nation is built has declined so precipitously. It is all very well to be indifferent to the situation now, but in two or three decades the price of that indifference will be paid - by the whole nation.

So, nations everywhere, should focus on an education system that truly allows their children to learn - and not binds them up in an incessant bureaucratic requirement for testing. Britain made that latter choice - and the results are very clear: a generation of dumb kids - and a generation of dumb adults to come.

(If you would like to read of Ainan Celeste Cawley, a scientific child prodigy, aged seven years and seven months, or his gifted brothers, please go to: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html I also write of gifted education, IQ, intelligence, child prodigy, child genius, baby genius, adult genius, savant, the creatively gifted, gifted adults and gifted children in general. Thanks.)

The tyranny of tests

England is not what it was, in many ways. Yet, only recently have I become aware of one way in which it has changed since my childhood.

I now live in Singapore and, having observed Singapore for a few years, I had come to the conclusion that Singaporeans are test mad. There is a test for everything and nothing is trusted unless it has been tested. I had come to view it as somewhat pathological - in the sense that it is far too prevalent to be healthy. Yet, that was before I came to know of the recent situation in the UK. If anything it is worse, there.

A UK student is now expected to take over 70 official tests from the age of 7 to the time they leave school. These are not, as far as I am aware, optional, in-house school testing, but obligatory mandatory, national testing.

I only became aware of this situation, not having lived in the UK since my children were born (apart from one stint), because of a proposal to end all such testing, that some brave political soul has tabled. It would probably be a good thing for British children were it to be enacted - but it is extremely unlikely, for the leaders of the educational establishment were quoted as being fully behind the test-taking tradition.

Let us look at what these tests do to children. With so many of them, there is forever another test coming up. There is ever the need to prepare for the next test. The focus of the students is on passing the test. There is never time or space to look around and see subjects in greater breadth or depth - there is only that which is in the test, in their minds. The consequence of an education that is nothing but a long series of tests is that the child is never truly educated. They are trained to do tests - and that is all. I have seen this phenomenon at work in Singapore which produces very good test takers...but not truly well-educated people: their minds have been too constricted by constant testing. The same unhealthy pressures have been constricting the minds of whole generations of British children while I wasn't looking. I don't imagine that it will lead to the national prosperity (and all the other things that politicians seek) that they imagine. Rather, it will lead to a nation unable to hold its place where once it reigned supreme.

Nothing should be allowed to stand in the way of the education of children - and most certainly not an official burden of over 70 tests per school career. How ridiculous.

(If you would like to read of Ainan Celeste Cawley, a scientific child prodigy, aged seven years and six months, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, three, and Tiarnan, sixteen months, please go to: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html I also write of gifted education, IQ, intelligence, child prodigy, child genius, baby genius, adult genius, savant, the creatively gifted, gifted children and gifed adults in general. Thanks.)