How to help every gifted child in Singapore.

It occurred to me, today, that Ainan has, unwittingly, helped every gifted child in Singapore. He has done so, by leaving the country. I shall explain.

The reason Ainan left Singapore was because Singapore was not supporting his education adequately: we were receiving a lot of delay tactics, and very little real support. By the time we left, there was no support in place at all. Now, obviously, given Ainan's relatively high profile internationally, it is very embarrassing for Singapore that he should leave. Indeed, even the front pages of the Wall Street Journal commented on the situation (even if the front pages of the Straits Times did not). There is considerable "loss of face" for Singapore, in the situation. Yet, this is actually good for Singapore's other gifted children - for it is likely that Singapore's educational institutions will think twice before being difficult and slow to respond to the needs of other gifted children. They will have, in the back of their minds (such as they are), the memory of one very public departure, because of their own previous failings to support a child, properly.

Thus, although it was not our intention to do so, Ainan's public departure from Singapore, for Malaysia (a much more open country, as far as we have presently experienced), is of great help to all other gifted kids in Singapore. I would be very surprised if Singapore did not take greater measures, in future, to provide for its gifted children. Otherwise, it would lose others to Malaysia and other countries, too. Until Ainan's departure, perhaps they were labouring under the delusion that Singapore was so wonderful a place, that no gifted kid would ever think of leaving. Funny enough, though, we are aware of a mathemetically precocious boy, who was also displeased with Singapore's response to his gifts. He left, too, for the United States, long ago. However, his departure did not come to public attention, because he has a low profile, so his decision would have no effect on the way Singapore does things. Ainan's departure, though, is different and likely to have a beneficial effect for all gifted children remaining in Singapore. The MOE and GEP will not be keen to see Ainan's individual decision, become a flood of talented emigrants, turning their backs on a nation that had, in some way, turned its back on them.

Yet, even though it is likely that the MOE will take greater care of its gifted children in future, there are other possible effects of Ainan's departure. His decision to study at a private University in Malaysia, may inspire other Singaporeans to look at Malaysia as a possible source of education for their children. The private sector in Malaysia is, unlike its public counterpart, rather strong and able to offer a wide range of schooling options which are as good as anything Singapore has to offer in its private sector - though much, much cheaper.

Perhaps, therefore, even though Ainan may inspire a better response from the MOE in future, towards its gifted citizens, he may also inspire some of those citizens to head overseas, despite the MOE's best efforts, in search of alternative options.

I wonder, therefore, what effect, on balance, Ainan's educational decision will have? Will the MOE's renewed efforts to retain talent outdo the impulse to look elsewhere for an education? Will more stay as a result of a change in MOE's attitude? Or will more leave, having learnt from Ainan's example?

It is, at this stage, impossible to say what will happen. I will, however, watch the situation closely, for any clues as to what transpires. It occurs to me, though, that whatever the effect of Ainan's move that it does help every child in Singapore. You see, it will probably mean that MOE will make greater efforts for its charges - which is good for all concerned - but it also means that parents will realize that there is an alternative to Singapore's rigidities. So whether they stay or go, Singapore's talents will benefit. They now are aware of more choices and they are also likely to be helped more, (by the MOE). So, either way, the children win.


(If you would like to learn more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, 10, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, 6 and Tiarnan, 4, this month, 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.

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 at http://www.genghiscan.com/

This blog is copyright Valentine Cawley. Unauthorized duplication is prohibited. Use only with permission. Thank you.)

The Gifted Education Programme is a failure.

The Gifted Education Programme, of Singapore, is a failure. I shall explain and detail why, in this post, although I have addressed the issues piecemeal in other posts over the years.

The Gifted Education Programme, or GEP, as it is known, for short, in Singapore, is a government programme supposedly intended to support the education of gifted students. I say, "supposedly" because our experience of them, and that of others we know, is that they don't seem to know what support actually means.

We became involved with the Gifted Education Programme (GEP), shortly after Ainan passed his O level Chemistry at an unprecedented seven years and one month old. This world record was enough to get their attention. Interestingly, when we had tried to approach his school about his special educational needs, prior to his O level exam, they essentially snubbed us, not taking our word for it. Their attitude soon changed once we had a piece of paper to prove it: how Singaporean.

Anyway, the Gifted Education Programme/GEP spoke a lot about what they could do for Ainan. Their first interest was to assess him. This turned out to be a long and rather involved process, putting him through a series of interviews with scientists, a psychologist and various tests. It took months to satisfy them - despite his O level - that there was a need to intervene.

When, finally, they were satisfied that a need was revealed, their offerings were remarkably slight. The only thing we asked for was laboratory access so that he could gain practical experience of Chemistry. However, this was the one thing that they seemed reluctant to provide in any meaningful way. They arranged for five sessions at Raffles Junior College and Raffles Institution. That was a help and a good start, however, at the end of it, they told us that this was "Resource intensive" and that they were not prepared to support ongoing laboratory work for him, because there were "No funds available."

Privately, we arranged access to some Chemistry workshops with RJC. When the GEP heard about it, they seemed to put a stop to it, for after the Gifted Education Programme had contacted them, Raffles Junior College told us that they were no longer able to help. They declined to give a reason, despite the fact that they had made the offer of help, themselves.

This was our first concrete indication that, far from actually helping Ainan, that the GEP may actually be interfering with his opportunities.

Interestingly, when we discussed our experience with the mother of another gifted child, she said she had had very similar experiences. Every time she let them know what she was doing to nurture her child's gift, the Gifted Education Programme tried to discourage her, or interfere in some way. So, our experience was not unique. Incidentally, she eventually left Singapore, in frustration, at the Gifted Education Programme, and is now living in another country, with her gifted son. No doubt that is beneficial to Singapore's long term potential.

The Gifted Education Programme, after much prodding, arranged for Ainan to attend NUS (National University of Singapore) High School for Maths and Science, at the age of 7. Again, the process of admission was a long one, which seemed to take forever. Eventually, however, they offered him ONE HOUR a week, at NUS High. We were rather shocked at this, since it seemed too little to actually feed his interest. However, we kept an open mind and brought him along for the first couple of weeks.

It was a great disappointment. They had assigned him to a class and a level that he had already studied. In his first two weeks there he told me that there was ONLY ONE fact that he didn't already know. That is one single piece of information encapsulated in a few words. We quickly came to the conclusion that this was a waste of time and money. It wasn't worth the taxi fare there and back again.

We explained our observations to the Gifted Education Programme. They were not very understanding. The GEP Officer said: "Oh, it is not about what he can learn, it is all about the other things." It turned out that she was referring to the social side. It seems that the GEP considers that the greatest need for a gifted child is a social club. He wasn't supposed to be there to learn anything. He was supposed to be there to make friends and get used to being around older people.

Now, that is all very well...but hang on a minute, isn't it supposed to be a Gifted EDUCATION Programme? Ainan had a need to learn, and this wasn't being met.

We asked for various things, all of which were denied us. We asked for him to go on a broad spectrum O level programme (at 7) covering all the other subjects that he hadn't yet studied, in combination with an A level in Chemistry. They denied this, saying: "He hasn't proven himself in the other subjects."

I thought this was very silly. Basically, they were saying: "We don't believe he can get an O level in the other subjects, until he has already got an O level in them. At that moment, we will believe it, then he can have an O level course, which he will no longer need."

Ainan was already the youngest O level holder in the world. If he could do that, he could do the other subjects too. It seemed a "no-brainer" - but not to the GEP no-brains, it seems.

We then asked if he could attend a broad range of courses at NUS High, to get a feel for them and see which he would like.

They wouldn't allow it.

I suggested he could just sit on the courses and audit them.

They wouldn't allow it.

I asked if he could have a Chemistry practical class at NUS High, for that was his real need.

They wouldn't allow it. Not only that but the GEP Officer, Yogini Yogarajah, said: "Why don't you find a private school and pay for it yourself."

We had already researched that, and had quotes of 600 dollars per session. Clearly, the private option was out of the question.

In our final meeting with the GEP/Gifted Education Programme, we tried to explain to the Gifted Branch Officers present that Ainan had a very practical learning style and that he needed to actually DO Chemistry, to learn it properly.

Yogini Yogarajah said: "Oh, we at the Gifted Branch think learning style is very important."

"Well, can we have practical classes, for Ainan, then, because I have just told you he has a very practical learning style."

"Oh, that's not good enough for us.", she said, with the utmost dismissiveness.

That was too much for me. She was dismissing the input from the parents - who, of course, know Ainan about a hundred thousand times better than the Gifted Education Programme ever could. Apparently, such inside knowledge, from people who really know a child, is "Not good enough for us."

I rose, said: "We will never speak again." and left.

I kept my word. We have never spoken to the GEP since, nor do we intend to. They are not what they purport to be. They are extremely slow in responding. They refuse to make funds available to support a gifted child's special needs. They attempt to block initiatives that would help the child. They refuse to take on board the views of the parents. They offer provision which is so abstemious that it makes no difference at all to the growth of the child. That which is most essential to the child is that which they precisely deny the child.

The account above is a very brief one. It leaves out detail on occasions on which the GEP made difficulties for us, in our attempts to provide the right education for Ainan. However, it does give some idea of the ways in which the Gifted Education Programme is not truly functioning as an education programme.

There is one way in which it is functioning, however. At our final meeting with the GEP, Yogini Yogarajah had a very thick folder in her hands, which she would not let us see. Apparently, it contained reports on Ainan written by everyone in the education system who had had contact with him. It transpires that all who had contact with him were under instructions to write a report on their observations of him. I found this really spooky. The Gifted Education Programme does not provide a suitable education for the gifted. However, it does keep gifted children under close observation and writes reams of reports about them. You can come to your own conclusions about what this means. Personally, I found their emphasis on observation over educational provision to be really quite perturbing. It seemed that their true intentions were rather different from their expressed ones.

One of my questions to Yogini Yogarajah and her Gifted Branch colleagues that last day, was: "What is the Gifted Education Programme for?" Yogini tried to twist the meaning of my question and rephrase it to make it seem less critical of her and her people, but I reiterated my question unchanged. Our year or so with the Gifted Education Programme had left me genuinely puzzled about what it was actually for. I could no longer see it as an educational support initiative for the gifted, because it wasn't really performing as one. I was left with a big question mark in my mind about what was the actual, real purpose of the Gifted Education Programme. I was left to conclude that either it had another (unstated) purpose, which it may well be succeeding in, or that the Gifted Education Programme was failing in its (stated) purpose of supporting the educational needs of gifted children.

Ainan is just one scientifically gifted child. Singapore, through the Gifted Education Programme, had shown itself unable to cope with the needs of just one child. One of the repeated phrases we heard on Yogini's lips was: "If we do it for your child, they will all want it." The justification, for doing basically nothing, was that if Ainan was provided with the laboratory access he needed to continue to learn science, that it would create a stampede of parents also wanting the same for their children.

I can just see it now: Singapore is clearly overwhelmed with scientific prodigies. Clearly, in Yogini's mind, there are millions of them out there, just waiting to "all want it". I found her remarks absurd. Singapore has only one child like Ainan, gifted in this particular way. There would have been no stampede of other parents demanding the same for their child. All that was happening here, was that the Gifted Education Programme were finding reasons for doing nothing to help.

To my mind, that means that the Gifted Education Programme is NOT an education programme. It is something else. What else, I don't know, but they certainly don't do even the obvious things to help a child like Ainan.

If they really have no funds available, I could make a suggestion for making funds available. They should fire the Branch Officers assigned to us...because they were completely unable to listen to us. They shouldn't work for an education programme at all. The money saved through not paying their salaries would liberate resources for many gifted children.

Better still: why not sack the entire department, then there would be plenty of resources for Singapore's gifted. All that would be needed is one person to co-ordinate the activities.

So, my advice regarding the Gifted Education Programme is not to expect much from them. In fact, you might be a lot happier not to become involved with them at all in the first place. We could have done without the experience we went through with them. I expect you can too, if you have a gifted child.

(If you would like to learn more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, a scientific child prodigy, aged eight years and seven months, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, five years exactly, and Tiarnan, twenty-eight 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, the Irish, the Malays, Singapore, College, University, Chemistry, Science, genetics, left-handedness, precocity, child prodigy, child genius, baby genius, adult genius, savant, wunderkind, wonderkind, genio, гений ребенок prodigy, genie, μεγαλοφυία θαύμα παιδιών, bambino, kind.

We are the founders of Genghis Can, a copywriting, editing and proofreading agency, that handles all kinds of work, including technical and scientific material. If you need such services, or know someone who does, please go to: http://www.genghiscan.com/ Thanks.

This blog is copyright Valentine Cawley. Unauthorized duplication prohibited. Use Only with Permission. Thank you.)

"No resources" for Singaporeans; abundance for PRCs

I find the recent fuss over a Chinese PRC (People's Republic of China) student who took up a bond-free scholarship (that is one with no obligation to work for a set number of years in Singapore), but then fled, without notice, to a destination unknown (though suspected to be a US university), of great interest. You see, I find the contrast of the Singaporean educational authorities' response to PRC students marked indeed to what we experienced when we were working with the Gifted Education Programme.

I have written before of the differential treatment given to foreigners (particularly PRC students) and locals, but it bears writing of again, given the topicality of the issue - and the fact that I have personal experience to bring to the matter.

When we were seeking help, for Ainan, from the Gifted Education Programme, we were repeatedly told, in regards to our need for a Chemistry lab for him, that there were "No resources". The Gifted Branch Officer, Yogini, even said: "Why don't you find a private school and pay for it yourself?" Well, we checked out private schools. One, for instance, quoted a price of 600 dollars a lesson. That is a huge amount of money. Clearly, given the mercenary attitude of private schools in Singapore, it simply wasn't an option to hire a lab for ourselves. We found the GEP's response puzzling. Ainan had shown himself to be unusually gifted (he is, after all, the youngest child ever to pass an O level) - yet the GEP couldn't find the resources to help him. This seems strange given the hundreds of school laboratories across the face of Singapore: surely one had a teacher with the time and inclination to help? We were told that this was "too resource intensive" and that the GEP refused to arrange it.

Thus, we wasted a year and a half looking for a school or college for Ainan that would help. We found one, ourselves, in the Singapore Polytechnic (to whom we are most grateful). The GEP did not help, however, in any real way.

Now, contrast this experience of a gifted Singaporean child, with the experience of an imported PRC student on a government scholarship. Their education is free. They are given accommodation and a monthly stipend to meet their expenses. They have access to the best schools and facilities - and, in the case above, they are under no obligation to Singapore. There is no talk, for PRC students of "no resources".

Apparently, a gifted, even prodigious, Singaporean child is of less value to Singapore, than an imported PRC. A gifted, even prodigious, Singaporean child is of less concern to the system - it is OK not to support them, to let them be unstimulated, to deny them access to the resources they need to grow - because, heh, after all, they are not the all important PRCs of China.

We have heard of other gifted children in Singapore not getting the resources they need, or finding the response of the GEP frustrating. I doubt that PRC students have to experience the same thing.

So, my point is that if resources are available, in plenty, to lure foreign students - particularly PRCs - to Singapore, the resources should be available, in plenty, to ensure that no gifted Singaporean child (or indeed any Singaporean child of any level of intellect), goes without the resources they need to best optimize their talents.

A system which does not recognize the importance of native born Singaporeans (as my son is) and preferentially supports PRC imports, is one that has lost sight of who is more likely to make a contribution to Singapore. You see, as the flight of the PRC in question shows, the loyalty of an imported "talent" is always going to be less than that of a homegrown Singaporean (assuming, of course, that Singaporeans are well looked after and not treated poorly by the system, since that will lead to a decline of loyalty and national affection).

I understand why resources are made available for PRCs and the like: it is to seduce them into staying in Singapore, it is to increase our pool of talent. That is all very well and probably has a certain wisdom to it - but - and this is a big but - it should not be a discriminatory practice: Singaporeans, particularly ones of gift, should have just as much access to special resources as the imports. Otherwise, something strange will happen: just as the PRCs arrive, the Singaporeans will leave. Is that a desirable outcome?

(If you would like to learn more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, a scientific child prodigy, aged eight years and seven months, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, five years exactly, and Tiarnan, twenty-eight 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, the Irish, the Malays, Singapore, College, University, Chemistry, Science, genetics, left-handedness, precocity, child prodigy, child genius, baby genius, adult genius, savant, wunderkind, wonderkind, genio, гений ребенок prodigy, genie, μεγαλοφυία θαύμα παιδιών, bambino, kind.

We are the founders of Genghis Can, a copywriting, editing and proofreading agency, that handles all kinds of work, including technical and scientific material. If you need such services, or know someone who does, please go to: http://www.genghiscan.com/ Thanks.)

NUS High: is education appropriate?

Can standardized education ever meet the needs of a gifted child? (Especially a prodigious one?)

I wonder at this because of Ainan's experience of NUS High. It has taken a long time to go from initial approach to actual attendance at NUS High. The journey has required many different administrative hurdles to be overcome - and, at no stage, could it be regarded as a straightforward matter. Yet, now that Ainan, 7, is attending the National University of Singapore High School for Maths and Science, I note a danger that I had not given enough thought to before. This is the danger that the school might not provide for his needed level of stimulation and education.

This might seem a strange thought for anyone who doesn't know Ainan - surely, you will ask, NUS High School for Maths and Science, should be enough of a stimulus for him, considering that he is only 7. This is not necessarily so. Ainan is studying A level Chemistry at home (and reading sometimes at a higher level still). For comparison's sake, it should be noted that A level is equivalent to a US College Degree, in academic demand.

The classes at NUS High, so far, have not been at the level that Ainan requires to extend his boundaries. He has been recapping material already known. In his first class, for instance, he learnt one new thing. That was a good start: one new thing, in two hours of class work is better than nothing. In his second class, however, he learnt nothing new at all. In the space of two hours, nothing new was covered: he was familiar with it all.

There are more dangers in this than might be immediately evident. With a gifted child, one grave danger is that of boredom. If no new material is presented, or the material presented is new, but trivially simple for the child, then the gifted child will switch off after awhile and become bored. In due course, the gifted child may lose interest in the school and in education itself. All this may result if the student is under-challenged by a course. This is what Ainan is now at risk for. The classes do not cover new material (only one new item has been introduced so far in Ainan's first week), and engage him at a level, at which, he is not charting new territories. I worry about this because I know Ainan. There is one sure way to switch him off - and that is repetition. If you repeat work he has already familiarized himself with - unless you are expanding on the material in some way/adding something new, as well - you will lose him and he will become bored.

Any gifted child may respond in this way to a standardized school experience. Such lessons do not usually adjust for the presence of the gifted child and may not extend the child's knowledge at all. In all such situations, little is learnt and there is the danger that the child may give up on learning, in such an environment. I would say that a gifted child should never be exposed to unchallenging classes and should never be asked to repeat material already known.

It may be that a school is the wrong place for a gifted child - particularly a prodigy - for school will only ever cater for the middle of the road: the mainstream of the pupil body. At NUS High School for Maths and Science, that mainstream consists of mathematically and scientifically gifted children - but there are different levels and needs of such gifted children. Some will need more than others. These children will not be catered for by a system that is aimed - and must necessarily be aimed - at the middle of the pack, if it is to work as a classroom at all.

Perhaps later classes will develop the subject in more depth. Perhaps in time Ainan will be introduced to new material and his interest will be stimulated, awakened and rewarded. This is, however, only a hope of a father who has long sought to find the right educational situation for his prodigious child. What I see, now, however, is a course that is not challenging Ainan, at present. This may change - and I hope it does. I would like to see him extend his boundaries and learn new things. That is, after all, the whole point of an education. At present, however, even in such a seemingly appropriate environment, I don't see it happening just yet. Perhaps it will change. Perhaps they will adjust to fit his needs better. I hope so - but I don't know so. It is just a father's hope. I just hope I don't hope in vain.

(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, Fintan, four years and no months, or Tiarnan, seventeen 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.)

Raffles Institution welcome Ainan

The Raffles Institution welcomed Ainan, seven, yesterday to discuss how they might be able to help his educational development.

For those overseas, the Raffles Institution and its sister, Raffles Junior College, form one of Singapore's most revered educational institutions. It is, of course, named after Stamford Raffles, who founded Singapore on the 6th February 1819. It is a boys only school, that caters exclusively for teenagers and selects only the top 3 % of students. What does this mean? Well, for those who know that moderate giftedness corresponds to a prevalence of 1 in 44, it is clear that almost everyone at Raffles Institution and Raffles Junior College, will prove to be gifted - moderately, at least, with many of them much more, of course.

We met Theresa Lai and Dr. Jeffrey Lee Pheng Guan (Head of the Science Department).

I will describe their attitude rather than the contents of their suggestions, lest I jeopardize the initiatives that they would like to put in place. They proved to be excited, open, interested in helping Ainan, insightful as to his needs, willing to be flexible in order to help - and most of all, deeply convinced of the need to react to the situation in a customized manner. They understood that Ainan's prodigious nature required a special response - they understood that doing nothing would prove harmful. I was very pleased at their attitudes. Not with them, was the tendency to throw up barriers, present. Not a once did they say: "That can't be done." or "We don't have the resources." (for which would read: "We don't want to deploy the resources."). Not once did they harp on difficulties of any kind. They instead focussed on Ainan's needs and how they could meet them. This was all very refreshing and provided a marked contrast to the attitudes of some others we have encountered.

The meeting was brief, focussed, to the point - and action oriented.

They resolved, by the end, to help in whatever way they could - and one way was to try to find a mentor, for Ainan - a scientist, somewhere in Singapore, who would help Ainan grow, with the dedication he deserves.

Now, if they succeed in finding such a person, it would be time for celebration indeed. Thank you Raffles for an inspiring meeting.

The introduction was made by the Gifted Education Programme, so thanks to them, too.

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.)

NUS High School: the rarity of acceleration.

I have learnt that academic acceleration is practised rarely in Singapore. That is why I had got the impression that it isn't practised at all: one simply did not hear of cases - and what one did hear was that: "Education must be age appropriate."

At the National University of Singapore (NUS) High School for Mathematics and Science there are about six hundred and sixty students, presently, if I recall our conversation with the Principal correctly. Out of those students, only ten are accelerated. All the others are in the year according to their age. That was not a misprint: 10 are accelerated.

Yet, what does this mean? You see, the academic standard required, at any given age, at NUS High is greater than that of other "High Schools", according to the Principal. So, in the sense of the standard of work at a given age, ALL the students at NUS High are accelerated. However, only those ten are officially age accelerated on top of the higher demands of the school.

Ainan would be the only student of his age (seven) to be in the school. As posted on another occasion, it was clear from staff reactions that no other primary school pupils are at NUS High at present.

I will let you know more, when I do. Thanks.

(If you would like to read more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, a scientific child prodigy, aged seven years and three months, and 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 NUS High School meeting.

I met with the Principal of NUS High School, yesterday.

The meeting was several hours long and covered many areas. Ainan and my wife were both present. Apart from ascertaining Ainan's understanding of Chemistry and ability to learn science in general, through questions and posers, in areas old and areas new - including Physics (which he solved, without prior knowledge, thankfully), we discussed much of what could and could not be done for Ainan.

There is much I cannot say, at this stage, for I do not want to prejudice matters moving forward. Yet I do wish to raise certain concerns. Firstly, they have never had a child of Ainan's age before - and do not have any prior experience with this degree of precocity. He gave examples of highly precocious children who have begun to deal with material of a comparable level, from the maths discipline (they have no other scientific prodigies, at all) - but these were all twelve or thirteen years old, or more. Ainan is almost twice as precocious as the next most precocious children, therefore.

Throughout the discussions with the Gifted Education Branch the word "flexibility" has been used, and another phrase: "No barriers". I felt, in the meeting, that the Principal was not entirely comfortable with these requirements. He spoke, instead, of "no exemptions", "no exceptions", and said things like: "If we do that for one, they will all want it". His reasoning was not, therefore, consonant with what I had been led to expect was the procedure. There are, therefore, tensions in the system over how to handle a child such as Ainan. There is little or no experience of children like Ainan - and little or no willingness to make the range of accommodations that would be necessary to create an ideal situation.

I got the impression that it was very much that Ainan was expected to adjust himself to fit in, and that adjustments would not be made to fit him, better. The system would not alter: the occupant of the system must. This attitude does not take into account his age.

So, although as you may have read in the previous posts the NUS High School presents opportunities to secure a degree, and a broad education, it also presents problems that will need to be overcome.

He expressed doubts about Ainan using the labs. He made it clear that he wanted Ainan to "go slow". He spoke of a six year course. All of these things do not take into account Ainan's individuality or his particular ability to learn very fast. The picture he mapped out for Ainan, basically does not seem to understand the degree of precocity exhibited or its full implications for an appropriate education.

The most worrying thing he said was that: "I don't want his chemistry to get too far ahead of the other things." This shows a particular failure to understand the nature of prodigy - who always have a very strong peak, along with whatever other talents they have. He seemed to be saying that it was better to impede his progress in Chemistry than let it race ahead of everything. That is not the right thing to do at all. What would be better is to give him opportunities to bring everything else up to the standard of his Chemistry - which could be done in a few months, with access to good teachers. I suggested it. His response: "I don't have the resources...and I have six hundred other students, too." The implication was clear: why should I do that for him, and not for them?

He made it clear that no individualization would occur to accommodate the presence of Ainan, despite the fact that he would be about half the age of their youngest students.

He did judge, though, at the end, that Ainan was the best scientific mind he had ever met for a Primary student, there being no other in his knowledge, as precocious. Perhaps he should think on that, for a while, and understand that, as I said to him at the end: "An exceptional situation requires an exceptional response." I wasn't sure he liked the sound of that. It was something he could agree with, I think, logically, but not temperamentally.

However, the meeting was a productive one. I got to understand more of what was on offer: to gain an initial perception of the problems and possibilities it presented. None of the problems are insurmoutable - if there is the will to overcome them. My main remnant worry is that I am not sure that that will is there. The possibilities, however, if the problems are overcome, are great. Ainan could finally have access to the educational opportunities he needs.

"Radical acceleration", that isn't.

Here is the latest in the Gifted Education Programme saga, that has been unfolding on these pages.

The Gifted Education Branch now wishes to "radically accelerate" Ainan, my scientific child prodigy son, aged seven years and three months. He is presently in Primary 2, which is his age class. However, the decision has been made to "twin" him with a high school for science.

There are two high schools under consideration and the decision will be made based on timetabling. One of the schools specializes in science and maths and would, I think, be the best choice, from that point of view. We will see.

I have one concern though. Although it may seem to be "radical acceleration" to place a seven year old in high school, it wouldn't actually be acceleration at all - but a kind of deceleration. You see, Ainan has already studied the curriculum that he would be required to study at the high school. Thus he would be covering again what he already knows. I puzzle at this. I raised the matter with the Gifted Education Branch Officer and was told that: "Gifted education is not just about content, there are other factors..." she then went on to say something that completely eluded my comprehension and thus recall. I am accustomed to this in speaking with her - because there is something in me that only accepts statements that are reasonable. Apparently, content of the lessons is not the primary consideration with "radical acceleration".

I think they are being conservative, in a way, because of his age. He would be among people more than twice his age...and I think they feel that that is enough of a gap to begin with. So, they have decided upon this strange kind of social acceleration/academic deceleration as a first step. I am not sure it is the best one. I told them that Ainan would be bored with repeating a curriculum he has already covered...but this remark, as usual, was not entirely absorbed. There is hope though: once he has begun to accelerate, perhaps he will be allowed to move to a level that actually offers him something new, in due course. Whatever level that might be.

Ainan's economy with words

Some people talk much and think little; others talk little and think much: Ainan is of the latter breed.

Some of those of you who have followed the Gifted Education Programme saga may have wondered why I wanted a recording of the meeting with the chemists. The reason is two-fold: firstly it would have been an invaluable record of Ainan's thinking at this stage; secondly I knew I wouldn't get to know much about it from him, if I didn't. You see Ainan is quite economical with words and not keen to describe his experiences.

I tried asking Ainan about the meeting.

"So what happened then?"

"We sat down." He said, with a curious finality.

"What did you speak about?"

"We just sat down." There was something about his tone that said this was going to be a short conversation - not rude but, as if he thought it unnecessary to communicate.

"What chemistry did they talk to you about?"

"Much." He leant that word such weight that it was meant to encompass the whole conversation. That was it. He didn't say anything more.

Apparently, he had said a lot in the meeting - however he said nothing about the meeting. Now, perhaps, you understand my insistence on a recording!

The right to know in gifted education

Do parents have a natural, moral right to know about their children? What I mean by this is that if an educational authority administers tests, observations, or any other kind of information gathering procedure on their child - gifted or otherwise - is there a moral right for the parents to know the results, to read the reports and to have full access to all information pertaining to their child?

I ask this because our son, Ainan, is presently being studied by the Gifted Education Branch of Singapore. Much information is being gathered, but the information flow is largely one way, from us, to them. It is difficult to get information to flow back to us. We are not allowed to see the reports generated by all of this data collection, yet are expected to co-operate fully with it. This one-sidedness of their approach makes us more than a little uncomfortable, in fact it is upsetting.

My own feeling on the matter is that without full access to all information, the parent is being denied the power to make effective choices for their child. Without full access to the information the parent doesn't have all of the knowledge necessary to assess the appropriateness of the decisions made on behalf of their child. The parents are left with the choice to trust in the decisions made blindly, or not to trust them at all. Without full knowledge the parents can never be sure of the rightness of anything that is done. All we would have is what we know of Ainan - but we would not know what the other party THINKS they know. There is no opportunity to correct them, expand their understanding or put a different viewpoint, when we don't know what their viewpoint is. Being in the dark is no good at all from the parents' perspective - nor should it be any good from the educational authorities perspective, either - for by keeping the parents far from fully aware of all that transpires they are compromising the validity and integrity of the whole evaluative procedure. If the parents are in the dark, in some sense, so too are the evaluators, since a valuable source of feedback is lost. One cannot feedback about something one doesn't know about.

I would like your thoughts on this. Is there a natural right to know all matters pertaining to one's child (gifted or otherwise)? Is it fair for an educational authority to study a child but not pass the full results of that study on to the parents? Does it compromise the whole procedure if access is denied? What is done in your country? Are parents given full information? Is it their right?

Please write your thoughts in comment. Thanks.

Gifted Education Programme, Singapore: developments

Those who are regular readers will know that Ainan, my seven year old, scientific child prodigy son, has come to the attention of the Gifted Education Branch, of the Singaporean Ministry of Education. We had thought this would be a good thing, but as events unfold we are left increasingly unsure.

As you may know, Ainan was assessed last week by two chemists. Both parents were denied admission to the interview and Ainan faced three questioners alone. We were also denied a recording of the meeting. In consolation, however, we were promised a report of the meeting, by the chemists present. Now, it seems we may not even get that. Yesterday, we were told that the report is not for the parents' eyes, but was for internal use. So as it stands, we are not allowed into these meetings, we are not allowed recordings of them and now we are not even allowed access to the reports they produce. We are not happy with this.

At every stage we are misled about what is to happen. We are told that "nothing is done without the involvement of the parents" - and then they cut us completely out of everything, denying us access to all information. We have made a number of reasonable requests - all of which have been met with "no".

We are expected to be totally open with all information - but in return the Gifted Education Branch behaves like a secret society - maintaining a veil of secrecy over all information that they gather about our son...secrecy, note, from the parents of the child and the child himself. It is bizarre...and more than a little offensive.

I have received a detailed form of several pages length, with many questions to answer about Ainan. I am expected to fill this in, openly - but any conclusions drawn from it, any inferences or consequences will, if their past behaviour is a guide to their future behaviour, be with-held from us. This is just not reasonable. I am not going to fill in the form until I get written confirmation that they are going to be more open.

One would have thought that they would have done enough tests already...but no, today is another round of testing: a classroom observation to see how he is in that situation. Is that the last round? Nope. Not if they get their way: they want to give him more academic tests next week. Presently, I am not going to give permission: it is going to stop until they start being forthcoming with information. Maybe they will try to force the issue: we will see.

Our every request, wish and desire is being denied at every step and their way of doing things imposed on us because "we know better", or so their Officer says.

It is curious to note that the Officer assigned to us, only knows how to say no. An analysis of her statements shows no positive reaction to anything we have said to her: it is all her way on all issues.

Now, I don't know how other educational bodies in other countries handle gifted children - but I would have thought that keeping the parents happy was a good idea. Apparently this is not a consideration here.

Syahidah, my wife, even said to one of the Officers today that they were treating our son like a "specimen". Perhaps that is exactly what is happening.

(If you would like to read more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, aged seven years and two months, a scientific child prodigy, 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, intelligence, IQ, child prodigy, child genius, adult genius, baby genius, savant, the creatively gifted, gifted adults and gifted children in general. Thanks.)

Ainan's Chemistry Conference

As readers of the post below will know, yesterday Ainan had a meeting with two chemists and his Principal. The meeting took place over an hour or so and, during that time, the chemists asked questions about broad areas of Chemistry, seeking areas of strength and weakness. It seems that they only found the former, for they concluded that: "Ainan has an amazing depth and breadth of knowledge in Chemistry."

The chemists have promised to write a report on Ainan's chemistry knowledge so that it might be available to further his education. So, the conclusions of the chemistry "conference" are positive - but that still doesn't change the fact that the manner in which they approached the meeting was offensive to both parents.

Yesterday, my wife went to Ainan's school with him in a final attempt to be admitted to the meeting. She failed in doing so. She informed them that it was rather insulting to be excluded in this way but that made little impression. Thus, despite our every effort, Ainan faced this committee alone. That he acquitted himself well is a testament to his mental maturity - but that is little consolation. My wife pointed out to them that in most countries the presence of the parents would be required by law: here, it seems, it is denied, whether by law or not. The whole experience has left us much less happy than before about what is happening. We no longer feel entirely in control of the situation.

One thing that can be said of the Gifted Education Branch, though, is that they are very thorough. One would have thought that the evidence they have so far gathered would be enough to decide what to do next - but no, it is not. The next step is for Ainan to be observed in the classroom to see how he is in that situation; to view how the teacher interacts with him; and how he interacts with the teacher and his classmates. We haven't been informed whether there is yet another step after that. Each hoop passed, so far, has only revealed another to be jumped through. I feel like I am in a hall of mirrors surrounded by infinite reflections: it seems impossible to make progress through them all.

They did say one thing though that puts Ainan's life and ability into perspective. They said that Ainan is the only scientific child prodigy in Singapore. That is in a country of four and a half million people. They did add, though, that they have a number of maths child prodigies...but no other scientific one. Perhaps that explains their intensity with regards to him.

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

How to make parents unhappy, Singapore style

There are many ways to make parents unhappy, but one of them is exclusion from involvement in their children's education. Recently, I have posted about our son Ainan's acceptance onto the Gifted Education Programme, in Singapore. We have kept an open mind as to what benefits might accrue from their involvement with Ainan, and we are still trying to, but the latest developments offer, perhaps, a warning as to what might be to come.

Today, as I write, Ainan, my seven year old scientific child prodigy son, aged seven years and two months, is in a room with two chemists from the Gifted Education Branch and his Principal. They are there to interview and assess him regarding his scientific interests and "other matters" which were not specified to us. We are not happy about the circumstances of this discussion for many reasons and all of them come down to one thing: parental involvement.

The Officer from the Gifted Education Branch has spoken a lot of parental involvement, of how nothing is done without the approval of the parents and how the parents' involvement is important. As far, however, as her actions show, this is all empty talk. We had requested that either my wife or myself be present at the meeting, to make Ainan more comfortable. This request was firmly denied, the Officer arguing that our presence would make it difficult for him. Yep. I can see how having his mum present would be socially awkward: he is seven and she is his mother...what difficulty could there be? No measure of persuasion on the issue had any effect at all. One member of the Branch suggested that we could be present behind a two-way mirror and watch proceedings. (This, apparently, is something that is done quite often.) Another pooh-poohed this very stiffly, clearly irked by her colleague's suggestion. So, we weren't allowed to be present behind a screen either. We then asked if we could have a recording of this meeting, since it would be valuable to have such a record of this scientific meeting between Ainan and two chemists...invaluable really for the future, to record what he was like at this age. That, too, was denied, with the argument that the presence of a recording device would make him "feel like he is being evaluated". OK: so a panel of three judges firing questions at him, does NOT make him feel evaluated but a passive recording device, that says nothing, does?

I cannot see any good reason why they don't want either parent present, or a device to record what transpires. However, it is not difficult to see bad reasons, with a little thought. Why, basically, don't they want either parent to know what is happening in the confines of that room?

The manner in which we are being sidelined in the education of our son, by the Gifted Education Branch from the moment they came to recognize his gifts is quite perturbing. They are behaving almost as if they own Ainan in some way - and we are perceived as an inconvenience in the way of their plans for him. At least, that is how it feels from the way we have been treated on this issue.

In our previous meeting with the Gifted Education Branch, the Officer mentioned that, sometimes, parents refused to co-operate with the Branch and tried to go against their plans. Well, I wonder why? Could it be because the Branch disregards the wishes of the parents and treats them as a barrier to total control over the child?

Ainan is generally a quiet child. I am unconvinced that a panel of three strangers bombarding him with questions is a superior experience to one that included his mother as a reassuring presence. I am also unconvinced that the presence of his mother would detract from the quality of his responses. His greater comfort would be likely to produce a better result. Placing him in an uncomfortable situation is unlikely to secure the greatest access to his thoughts on science or any other matter.

What is notable is that his Principal was quite fierce on the phone on the issue of not allowing a recording or the presence of a parent. She had clearly been briefed by the Branch before she received my wife's call and cut her off before she had even begun to explain what she had in mind and quickly denied permission in an irrefutable style.

Given their approach to Ainan and his parents, one wonders if this Gifted Education Programme is concerned about what Singapore can do for Ainan, or what Ainan can do for Singapore. If their interest is education, it should be the former, if their interests lie elsewhere, it will be distinctly the latter.

Perhaps we were naive, but we didn't expect this high-handed approach to Ainan's future. The way the Branch Officer spoke, the Gifted Education Programme was portrayed as a great enabler, that allowed the children to grow as was appropriate. Yet, it is only the beginning of their involvement and what we already feel, strongly, is that our wishes are being disregarded and theirs imposed on us and Ainan. It is as if the parents are the enemy and the child is the trophy to be won over and harnessed to their own ends. Whether or not that is their intention, that is the impression they have managed to create in the space of a week.

I noticed, during the first meeting, that the Branch Officer, gainsayed a lot of what I said. She often had a counter view to my own. Since then, she has displayed complete inflexibility over how she wanted things to go, failing to accede to all of our requests. She always had strongly held views as to why things had to go her way and even came out with the "I am a psychologist...I know what to do." with an implicit, "I know better than you." Err...no, she doesn't. She knows very little about Ainan. She even said: "All child prodigies have the same issues." Really? Now, if that isn't stereotyping, I don't know what is.

She had already irked me enough by her refusal to accommodate our requests - and so she was unable to irk me more when she spoke in a manner that can only be described as condescending: "You should read about gifted kids then you would understand your son better."

That would be hilarious, in a dark sort of way, if it wasn't so alarming about what it implies of her understanding of the situation. My wife and I have a gifted child, a scientific child prodigy...does that not imply, genetically, that we too were once gifted children and so are well aware of the issues? That thought appears beyond conception for her. If I want to know about my gifted children, there is no need to consult a book...consulting my memories of my childhood will do.

Whatever results from the meeting today, one thing is most clear: the Gifted Education Branch have not handled this case well at all. Ainan's education has just begun, but we already feel left out of the equation altogether. Is this typical of gifted programmes worldwide - or is it just Singapore's approach to parents?

A child prodigy's dearest wish

About three days ago, I asked Ainan: "How much do you want to be homeschooled?"

An answer was not forthcoming. There was just this silence that stretched on. I asked him again, "How much do you want to be homeschooled, in marks out of ten?"

Again he was silent, but there was much evidence of thought in his silence. What incidents, opinions, or circumstances he was reviewing in his mind, I cannot know...but that he was doing something of the kind was clear. A sense of sadness, or resignation, or both, seemed to overcome him.

Again, I asked: "Ainan, I am your daddy...tell me, how much do you want to be homeschooled out of ten?"

His silence lay upon him, like a protective cloak. His quiet sadness seemed to deepen. Then, almost too quiet to hear, a single word emerged from his mouth: "Ten".

That was enough. He had said what preoccupied him. School was not for him.

I decided on a follow-up question. "Are you learning anything there?"

He just shook his head emphatically from side to side.

I didn't ask him anything more.

So, this is the situation as it stands. The school system is waking up to Ainan's gifts (though it has taken over a year for them to acknowledge him) and has decided that he is suitable for the Gifted Education Programme. The question is: is the Programme suitable for him? Will it meet his specific needs...or will it be another disappointment? Would it be better to homeschool and leave the formal education system entirely? All is presently up for consideration. I would first like to see what exactly will result from our meeting with the government representatives...and then, if that is not satisfactory, to embark on homeschooling, if permission is granted. If it is not granted and we are not satisfied with his education, we would simply leave Singapore for somewhere that would grant permission readily.

Perhaps a mixture of homeschooling and gifted provision could be achieved: if that is better than homeschooling alone. We will have to see. Presently, Ainan is enduring a slow death in mainstream education. He has to be saved from that, at least.

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

It's official: the Gifted Education Programme

In the middle of this week, we had a meeting at Ainan's school regarding him. Present were a panel of six people. These included his Principal and Vice-Principal and two officers from the Gifted Education Programme, a Government department devoted to seeking out and assisting gifted children. Until this moment, we had had no contact with this Department and had only heard gossip about how they work and what they do.

We sat in the boardroom of the school for two hours discussing Ainan. Firstly, he was officially acknowledged as being an appropriate addition to the programme. Then much was spoken of other examples of how the Programme had helped various gifted children over the years. It was all news to me. These children are few and so I suppose one hears little of what is actually done.

This meeting was, I feel, more of an interview of the parents, than a discussion of Ainan. Our every word was judged and weighed as the Government representatives tried to decide what sort of parents we were and what sort of challenges Ainan might face, perhaps, as a result.

One worry that did occur to me is that they seemed to be thinking in terms of a general idea of giftedness at this stage - that of the "globally gifted" child who is good in all things. I think this was their implicit ideal. I am uncertain, at this stage, how much understanding they actually have of prodigious children, with their domain-specific focus, since these children are much rarer than the general body of gifted children that they deal with, in the main. Ainan does show "global gift", but he also shows prodigious scientific precocity - and has no interest in anything outside science apart from, perhaps, Art (and Music once upon a time). Other academic subjects seem to hold little sway over him.

They have proposed that Ainan undergo another layer of testing to decide what intervention might be necessary. He is to meet a chemistry specialist to have a scientific discussion with a view to gathering more information on Ainan's scientific gift and understanding. That meeting will be used to decide any next steps.

To me all of this seems slow. Each stage successfully passed, seems only to open up another stage of assessment and decision-making. Meanwhile, Ainan suffers from the chronic boredom of an inappropriate schooling environment. Let us hope, therefore, that something good comes of all this soon.

I have a worry however. If Ainan doesn't like the scientist assigned to meet him, he will cut the scientist out completely, and just ignore him. He would do this, too, if he detected any scepticism, or criticism from the person (I don't know if the scientist is to be male or female). Basically, if the assigned chemist is not good at building rapport with seven year old children, he will get nothing out of Ainan at all. That could "put a spanner in the works".

Despite this, I suppose it is a victory of sorts, to have begun to engage the interest of a body that might have the power to give Ainan access to a more suitable education. We will just have to see how open-minded they are, and how flexible they will be in approaching the education of an unusual child. I am hoping that they won't just have a cookie cutter grade acceleration type approach. Ainan needs something rather more than that - and more specific, too. We will learn more next week, when the next stage of assessment begins.

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