Ravaglia on American education and the gifted

Raymond Ravaglia is the Deputy Director of the Stanford University, EPGY (the Education Program for Gifted Youth) and recently he gave a talk in Singapore.

One of the themes he addressed, briefly, was the state of American education. He summarized the style of American education by stating that, generally, American classes are pitched to "to the left of the distribution"...by which he meant the Bell Curve, of IQ distributions. He said that this was done so that those "to the left" were not left behind. This worked in keeping those of lower IQs happy but it had an unfortunate side effect: those to the right of the distribution - the ones for whom EPGY was conceived - would tend to be bored by American education.

Thus, EPGY is pitched to the right of the distribution. It is deliberately aimed at stimulating some of the brightest students. This could have the unfortunate consequence that some on the EPGY (he didn't say it, but seemed to mean those who had just scraped into the courses) might be left out a bit, but he did say that the course instructors did generally manage to keep all-comers happy. Yet, he did make it clear that the type of pitch of material at EPGY was very different to what would be expected in a standard American classroom.

He addressed this point quickly and in passing, but I felt it to be one of the more important things that he said: this pitch to the left of the Bell Curve was one of the big failings in American education - for it ensured that ALL gifted children would be left out in the classroom. There is something not quite right in that. Are not the gifted an important intellectual constituency to be nurtured and groomed to become the best that they may? I would have thought so, but it seems that American education has overlooked this and only in exceptional cases is the matter of the education of the gifted properly addressed.

America is the world's leading nation - but how much longer can it be, if the needs of its most gifted are neglected? Your thoughts please.

Raymond Ravaglia on out of level testing

As regular readers will know, Raymond Ravaglia, the Deputy Director of EPGY, the Education Program for Gifted Youth, at Stanford University recently gave a talk in Singapore.

He spoke of several things: one of them was his views on out-of-level testing. He considered this form of testing to be ill-conceived. In his eyes, there was no reason why a gifted child would be able to handle the material, for it was unlikely that the gifted child would have covered the material. It didn't make any sense to him that a child should be tested on material the child was probably unaware of. This was, in his opinion, very likely to generate a "false negative" - that is a child would be marked as "non-gifted" by an out of level test, simply because they had never met the material before when, in fact, they were gifted.

Raymond Ravaglia thought that it was wiser to design tests which were in-level, in the sense of being of material covered by the child at the relevant age, but which were designed to be more challenging in their presentation of questions. In this way, a child would not be penalized for not having covered a particular curriculum and would have the opportunity to show their gift, without distortion. He thought that this was much more likely to give a positive result for a gifted child and would not lead to false negatives, and loss of opportunity for the gifted child.

I had rather come to Raymond Ravaglia's view, myself, when first introduced to the idea of out-of-level testing - but it is interesting to see this opinion held by someone working in the American University system. The reasoning on the issue is sound...so why then does the practise of out-of-level testing persist?

Out-of-level testing is based on a misconception about what a gifted child is. A gifted child is a more intelligent child than an average one and is able to learn faster. Yet, a gifted child is not a miracle worker. If the child has not been exposed to the curriculum in question, one cannot expect that child to perform according to their true ability. They will under-perform if the curriculum is new.

My son, Ainan, has been subject to "out-of-level" testing in his area of Chemistry. In his case, the procedure is OK because he does, in fact, have much knowledge of Chemistry beyond his age range. In this case, the practise may be appropriate. Yet, in most cases, such a form of testing is likely to lead to a mismeasure of the child - and therefore should be avoided. If the child does have out-of-level knowledge - then test away. If the child has great ability but does not have out-of-level knowledge then such testing is really going to be harmful.

So, think carefully before consenting to such testing: the results could compromise your child's future and close doors that might have been opened by a different kind of testing.

(If you would like to read about Ainan Celeste Cawley, a scientific child prodigy, aged seven years and three months, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, three, and Tiarnan, thirteen 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 gifted adults in general. Thanks.)

Stanford University, EPGY, in Singapore

Yesterday, Raymond Ravaglia, the Deputy Director of the Education Program for Gifted Youth, at Stanford University, gave a talk in Singapore.

He spoke on the EPGY program - what it was and what it offered to students who took part. The audience was a small gathering of parents of children in the Gifted Education Programme, directed to the talk by the Ministry of Education.

EPGY started to give summer programmes in Singapore in 2004. The coming programme (I prefer this spelling!) in June will be the seventh such programme in Singapore. There will be six subject areas covered: English Expository Writing (ages 14 to 16); English Creative Writing (ages 14 to 16); Mathematical Logic and Problem Solving (ages 13 to 15); Physics: Quantum Mechanics (ages 16 to 18) and two courses for the Elementary Level: Elementary English Creative Writing (ages 10 to 12); and an Introduction to Mathematical Logic and Problem Solving (ages 10 to 12).

Unlike the EPGY courses at Stanford itself, these courses would be non-residential - which saves on costs. Courses are to take place, as I understand it, at the Hwa Chong Institution - a Singaporean Junior College (ages 16 to 18 years).

Raymond Ravaglia was passionate about the need for gifted children to be stretched, and not under-challenged in the classroom - and he saw EPGY as meeting this need.

Singapore is the only country outside of the US, which holds EPGY. The reason? According to Raymond Ravaglia, "Singapore is a good supplier of Stanford..." by which, of course, he means that many Singaporeans go to Stanford University.

I pointed out to him that EPGY have no Chemistry option, in Singapore. He said that one would be introduced - and a Biology programme too, in the near future, but that they were concentrating on options that had the broadest appeal, at present.

To administer the EPGY in Singapore, Stanford University have established an Administrative Office here, called V-Campus. The local representative here, is Lim Yian Poh. (His title is CEO).

A funny moment arose when Mr. Lim Yian Poh, saw Ainan reading a copy of Scientific American on Black Holes: "A seven year old reading Scientific American..." he mused, bemused!

I asked Raymond Ravaglia about the admission of youngsters to Stanford - say seven, eight or nine years old - and he said: "I would discourage it. Stanford isn't set up for students under seventeen, on the legal, social and emotional front..."

So, Stanford wouldn't be appropriate for Ainan, then...except perhaps later on, at a higher level. We will see.

It was interesting to get the opportunity to meet a representative of an American University and gather an impression about what that was all about. By the time, EPGY gets around to Chemistry, it will probably be too late for Ainan - he will have passed that point already (I think he has by now, anyway) but by posting here, other parents and children might be helped.

Good luck all.

(If you would like to read more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, a scientific child prodigy, aged seven years and three months, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, three and Tiarnan, thirteen 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.)