Child prodigies in Asia.

To my surprise, in the past week, Edvantage, a Singaporean education site, included Ainan in an article about "Child prodigies in Asia". He was just one of quite a few examples, given. You can read it here.

http://www.edvantage.com.sg/edvantage/photos/1307362/Child_prodigies_in_Asia.html

I note though, that Edvantage's knowledge of Ainan's achievements is quite limited since he has done much, much more than they have mentioned. However, I am not surprised at this, since Ainan has been essentially ignored by the Singaporean media, since we left, with only one recent mention (of just 120 words), in the New Paper - and nothing else at all. So, it was a real surprise to me to see Edvantage writing about him, even if they are short on the facts.

There is one ambiguity in their write up. They mention that "Ainan's father, Valentine Cawley, moved to Malaysia for higher education". This is funny because it seems to be saying that I moved to Malaysia to go to University - and not my son. I wonder if that is what they meant to say, or whether they just became confused in their expression?

Anyway, for those who don't know, we moved to Malaysia so that my SON, Ainan, then 10, could go to University - not me.

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.) 

City Harvest Church scandal is Singaporean greed, not “Western”.

City Harvest Church is a very wealthy Christian church in Singapore. It requires its members to donate 10% of their income to the church. It has 24,000 members, so it takes little calculation to realize that City Harvest Church's income from this largely young professional congregation, is vast. Recently there has been a scandal at City Harvest Church. The Star carried an article by Seah Chiang Nee about it that was most odd in its assertions. In response, I wrote the letter below, to the Star, hoping it would be published. Four days have now passed and it has not. Normally the Star publishes letters before then, so I am assuming that they are not going to publish this one, though I am prepared to be surprised. Given my assumption, I have pasted the text of my letter below. Thank you.

"I object, strongly, to Seah Chiang Nee’s bizarre assertion, in his article “The rise of the mega-churches”, that the alleged crime of Kong Hee and his fellow pastors, in misusing 23 million Sing. Dollars, was somehow the fault of the “West”. It was not. It was the simple and direct product of Singaporean greed.

I have lived in many countries, both Western and Asian. I have visited around 20 countries in my life. Of all those countries, Singapore is by far the most obsessed by money. It does not surprise me in the least, that a Singaporean pastor, of a very wealthy church, should be accused of using tax-free charity funds for inappropriate purposes – in this case, funding his wife, Sun Ho’s, pop music career to win more converts.

Seah Chiang Nee argues that City Harvest Church is just copying the fundraising zeal of TV evangelists, in the US. This is nonsense. Had the Americans not pioneered this kind of prosperity theology, it is certain that the Singaporeans would have stumbled on it, themselves. Singapore is highly inventive in all the ways to make money. They don’t need to be instructed in finding money-making schemes, by the Americans.

Furthermore, it is very self-serving, of Seah Chiang Nee, to explicitly defend a fellow Chinese man, by suggesting that his crime was somehow America’s fault. Kong Hee did not allegedly misuse that money because of America – if he did it, it was because of his implicit own character flaws, around the issue of money. The responsibility for this crime does not lie far away, but very nearby. Singaporeans need not  look for others to blame, in a rather paranoid fashion, but need to own up to their own crimes and their own criminals, should these be so proven to be. Only then will there be the possibility of addressing the underlying problems. As long as Asians blame the West for their own problems, those problems will remain unfixed. Asians should take responsibility for their own flaws – then try to overcome them.

Finally, it must be said, most clearly, that greed is not a "Western norm", as implied by Mr Seah's article...nor is the misuse of monies. It is deeply offensive to all Westerners that he should suggest so. Furthermore, the "West" is not defined by America, or what transpires there - there are many Western countries, each with somewhat different cultures. Mr. Seah should find out more about the West before making such allegations. In particular, he should note that a typical Western country is far less obsessed by money, than is Singapore."

Perhaps my letter to the editor about City Harvest Church was a little too strong to be published. Never mind, please comment below if you have anything to contribute. Thank you.

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.) 

Child Prodigy Schools: an educational trend.

In various parts of Asia, Child Prodigy Schools are being established. They answer to a social need - even, one might say, a social demand, in Asian culture, that children "perform". What this means is that, in many parts of Asia, so competitive is the culture, that many parents want for nothing less than that their children be prodigious.

Now, a child prodigy is, in my opinion, based on close observation, an innately gifted child. The prodigious gift is something that emerges from within the genetic inheritance of the child. It is very clearly present, from birth. It is not and never shall be, an environmentally bestowed attribute. So where does that leave "Child Prodigy Schools"? Nowhere, absolutely nowhere.

Yet, that doesn't stop Child Prodigy Schools from being opened around Asia. A recent one is a case in point: The Henan Child Prodigy School in China.

This school makes, as these schools tend to do, an outrageous claim. The owner of the school states that he can bestow a "photographic memory" on the children who attend his school. There are, at present, 150 of these unfortunate souls. I will tell you why they are "unfortunate" soon enough.

After receiving his training program, Zhang Xuexin, the Principal, claims that the children are able to memorize textbooks and traditional poems, and recite them - forwards and backwards. He then goes on to state that they are, therefore, "child prodigies". Well, even accepting his proposition that they end up with "photographic memories" (which I don't), being able to memorize a text and recite it backwards does not imply that one is a prodigy. It implies that either one has a good memory - or that one has spent an awfully long time learning the text. A good memory, on its own, does not confer prodigious status either. A child prodigy must be able to think (if they are in a cerebral domain - as, it is supposed, these are meant to be). Memory is a tool of thinking - but it is not, in itself, evidence of active thinking. A good memory may exist where a good mind does not.

I have seen a video of these children demonstrating their "talent" and it is truly chilling. They sit in rows in a classroom with their eyes closed (although some appear possibly to be slightly open - but more of that later). Before them lays an open textbook which they are unable to see (except perhaps those whose eyes appear to be slightly open). They are reciting what I am led to assume is the contents of the textbook, in a peculiarly inhuman, robotic way. They speak in unison, chanting the words from the book. Their faces have no expression. There is no emotion in them, as they chant. Most look terribly tired (one child is later seen to struggle to keep his eyes open and rubs them).

In the whole video the only person who shows some enthusiasm for life is Zhang Xuexin (as I assume the interviewee to be) who bubbles over with the simple joy of being interviewed on TV (at least, that is how it comes across). No-one else smiles or shows positive emotion in the whole video.

Nowhere do I see evidence of thinking, from the children. Nowhere do I see evidence of personality. Nowhere do I see evidence of happiness. Nowhere, indeed, do I see evidence of prodigiousness. I do, however, see a lot of children listlessly reciting words without any enthusiasm for doing so. I see humans made into robots.

Yep, that is a "Child Prodigy School" alright.

There is something more you should know - something which is more perturbing than the rest of the story put together. A kid playing table tennis missed the ball an awful lot. Huh? You say, what does that mean? Well, it could mean a lot. You see Zhang Xuexin has a lot of unorthodox ideas - I could have used the word "crazy" - but I didn't. One of these ideas is that the children would benefit from "absorbing energy from the Sun". To do this, he insists that they stare directly into the sun, periodically to absorb this "energy". There could be a very good reason why these children seem not to open their eyes much - and why they can't seem to hit a table tennis ball - I think it certain that most of them have damaged eyesight.

That boy rubbing his eyes may not just be tired - he may be wondering why there is a giant black spot in the centre of his vision. These children will go blind, for sure, if they follow Zhang Xuexin's regime, for any length of time - and if they follow it at all, they will have damaged eyesight.

Perhaps Zhang Xuexin's master plan is to open a School for the Prodigious Blind, next. I just can't wait to see what their training program is like.

(If you would like to learn more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, a scientific child prodigy, aged seven years and nine months, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, four years and two months, and Tiarnan, nineteen 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, College, University, Chemistry, Science, genetics, left-handedness, child prodigy, child genius, baby genius, adult genius, savant, gifted adults and gifted children in general. Thanks.)

The tyranny of examination grades

Singapore is one of many Asian nations that lives under a tyranny - a tyranny of grades: everyone is obsessed with them. An examination is not considered passed until you have the highest grade in the Universe - and then some.

What effect does this have on Singaporeans? Does it make them more intelligent? Does it make them more successful? Does it make them better people? Does it make them more creative?

The answer to the last four questions is a great big NO. It makes them much, much duller. Why do I say this? Well, to secure the highest grades on a consistent basis one must give up much of life. The children don't play. They don't have outside interests. They focus exclusively on schoolwork - and have no other life. They don't know how to interact with each other. They have poor social skills. They don't understand the world. They have no perspective on what they are doing or on the meaning of life. In short, they know nothing but the contents of the examination.

Perhaps knowing the contents of the examination so well is a good thing? Well...not really. Why do I say this? An examination is all about testing you on SOMEONE ELSE'S THOUGHTS. Many children become expert on other people's thoughts - but have none of their own. In some way, focussing too much on what other people have thought and written in books seems to inhibit the development of the ability to have your own. This is not supposition - but observation. I have taught in classrooms in Singapore - and I note an absence, even in the "best" students - of the ability to think for themselves. Many of them have ceded their own ability to think and subjugated it to the yoke of a textbook written by another. Nothing worthwhile ever comes of this mindset.

If given the freedom to write as they please, teenagers brought up to see the textbook as King and the examination as all, tend to say: "But you haven't told us what to write...". I have heard that thought many times. It saddens me everytime to hear it - for it means one thing and one thing alone: their obsession with grades and their acquisition has not taught them how to think - it has taught them how not to think. It has taught them that their thoughts are worth nothing and that the textbook is everything. These youngsters never write from their own minds - but from regurgitated memories of the minds of others.

It is common in Asia to use a child's examination grades and, largely speaking, their grades alone for selection purposes for further education - and then for employment. Are these societies being served well by this practice?

I don't think so. You see, many of the children who get the highest grades, consistently, show little ability to think for themselves. They have become rigid thinkers. Their thoughts are very defined and contained by the prior work of others. These people do not originate, do not create or innovate - they only repeat the ideas of others. Such a way of life can only take a society so far. The people that should really be identified, promoted and nurtured are not the kids obsessed with grades and competitiveness - but the kids who love to learn, understand, grow and think for themselves - and for knowledge itself. By this I mean that they have a true passion for their subject. It is these children who are likely to be creative: their knowledge springs from a love of learning - and not a need for a perfect grade. In my experience, such children are more open to considering many ideas, are more able to produce their own and are more flexible in their approach to things. They may, however, be overlooked in a society that places too much emphasis on academic competition - and the consequent grading.

If grades were the answer, places like Singapore and Korea would be the greatest centres of thinking in the world - for they have the highest grades in maths and science, worldwide - yet, they are not. Other places with lesser grades have a greater reputation for innovation. This shows that there is a disconnection between grade and real world performance. What is that disconnection? It is the ability to think for oneself. Grades measure your ability to think someone else's thoughts. They say nothing about your ability to think your own - and there lies the problem. True thinkers are not necessarily being selected for and given opportunity - those who think like others, are, however.

Is there a remedy? Yes. Education systems - and societies - need to be broader in their assessment of children and the adults they become. They need to look at the whole person - and ask: is this someone with a mind of their own? Is this someone who can think independently? Is this someone with a creative spark? If the answer to any of these questions is a yes - then, as long as they have shown a basic awareness of the material of their discipline, by passing the relevant exams, the actual grades should not be regarded as particularly important. The capacity to create and innovate - and think their OWN thoughts is of vastly greater significance. A society which shows more flexibility and open-ness in how it selects its "movers and shakers" - and members of the "thinking classes", is a society more likely to give opportunity to people who actually have the capacity to do something new; the capacity to change things for the better by actually being able to be creative.

Why do I post on this? Well, it is something I have long observed and long thought on - but the immediate catalyst was my meeting with Associate Professor Tim White and a remark he made. He revealed to me his own experience of this matter. He had encountered students with perfect grades who were "rigid thinkers" - who were not very good as researchers - while he also knew of other researchers whose grades, "included the odd B or C", who were actually "among our most gifted researchers". This is a very telling observation indeed. It shows that the common thinking around educational grading is mistaken. His better researchers - that is, those who showed more CREATIVITY in the lab - actually had poorer grades than some others, who had better grades, but less creativity. This is a phenomenon that must be more widely appreciated. Otherwise societies and institutions will continue to deny opportunity and access to the very people who have the most to offer: the creative few.

What are we to learn from this? Well, a student with perfect grades may indeed be the best thinker and the best creator - but the grades themselves do not establish that: other factors not measured by the grading system, do. Creativity is not measured by examinations (especially in the sciences). So, examinations don't tell us who is creative and capable of original contribution. Therefore, we cannot say that the student with perfect grades is the best candidate for a role that involves creative production - nor can we say that they are not. We can actually say nothing about whether they are suited to such a role or not, from the result of the examination alone. However, the same applies to the student who does NOT have perfect grades. They might actually be the best researcher and the most creative individual available - but their less than perfect grades might cause them to be overlooked. It is also true that they might not be the best researcher. We can say nothing about their creative capacity from the grades alone. Yet, we MUST not close our minds to the possibility that, of two candidates, the one with the lesser grades might actually be the better creative thinker.

How are we to decide the matter then, between candidates? Look at them more broadly and see what evidence there is in their lives and work to show creativity and use that information to decide between them. Don't just look at grading - because it is often a poor guide to the best thinkers. The greatest thinkers don't really like thinking other people's thoughts the whole time - yet examinations require just that from them. So, you won't find the best thinkers by harvesting those of perfect grade.

There is an ultimate logical conclusion to this which must be stated. In the final analysis, if a person shows that they can be creative, they should be given the opportunity to create, in a supportive context, even if they have NO examination passes at all.

Now that would really be an educational revolution.

Conversation from the classroom: creativity at risk

I heard something today which is enough to alarm anyone who values creativity. It was nothing more than a fragment of a real conversation that took place, but the implication of it, is quite unsettling.

Teacher to student: "I would like you to write a dialogue on buying something in a shop."

Student from mainland China: "But I don't want to buy anything."

Teacher: "Imagine, then."

Student: "Imagine?" He sounded as if nothing more impossible could have been asked of him. "I can't imagine."

End of conversation.

The student in question did not believe it was possible for him to imagine buying something, without actually having the desire to buy something. That was one imaginary leap too far.

It worries me that creativity of even the most basic kind is so difficult for so many young people today. They live in "what is"...and cannot change their thinking, in any way, to create "what is not."

I don't know about you, but it is one of my greater concerns, to see this inability at work, all around me. I will write more on this in future. I just found that conversation sobering enough to have to report.

Child Prodigy Schools In Asia: Hope or Hype?

Schooling all over the world is not the same. Despite the every effort at homogeneity made by the export of Western educational culture to the world, through European examinations, such as the O Level and A Level and the IB (International Baccalaureate), and American University degrees, there remains an element of cultural uniqueness to most educational cultures.

One element of uniqueness in the Asian educational landscape is the emergence of the prodigy school. Now, anyone who knows anything of prodigies might be a little taken aback by that statement: I was, too. The idea that a school would purport to create a prodigy, on demand, is quite astonishing. Yet, in several Asian countries such schools have been established. They are to be found in Korea and China, as well as, surprisingly, Indonesia (more of that later).

The question is: can a school create a prodigy? Firstly, we must understand what a prodigy is. As you may know, a prodigy is a child, under 11, with adult performance in an adult discipline: that is a high bar to expect a school to meet.

What type of children do these schools take? In Korea, they take the top 1% of children - so all their entrants are gifted. That gives us hope, except to note that this is not nearly selective enough to isolate prodigies. So their pool consists of gifted children, but not naturally prodigious children. I think, in some ways, these schools have been mischievously marketed, for what they offer is not to make a child a prodigy, but to educate a gifted child to a high level.

The Chinese case, however, is a little worrying. Promotional material for one school promises to take a child of "average intelligence" and to give them, at age 10, "the intelligence level of a University student", by which they seem to mean the actual intellectual performance of a University student. Well, there is one word for that: impossible (for the child of "average intelligence", anyway.) The school will give each student an exhaustive education in a regimented fashion (if photos of the students at work are any guide). The result will be an educated child, who has been taught by rote, largely speaking. The child will know a lot - but I think it is very unlikely that the process will enhance their intelligence, as we properly think of intelligence. The child will still be a child of "average intelligence" - who happens to have been educated. That is not a prodigy.

In most countries, a school making such a claim would be shut down pretty quickly, especially when its fees are looked at: up to 138,000 yuan per year (which, in terms of affordability, is like the same in US dollars to an American, when salaries are taken into account). The school also begins by teaching students as young as 1 year old. Apparently, they have 400 students - which, in terms of income, is a very successful proposition for the owner of the school. It remains to be seen whether they will produce any prodigies, however.

The Indonesian case is odder still. They have a photograph of Ainan, my scientific child prodigy son, on their website. The implication seems to be that Ainan is a product of the school. This is not so. Ainan has not attended a "prodigy school". I know of no prodigy who has actually attended a prodigy school. So, if you see material promoting Ainan as the product of such a school - know it for what it is: opportunistic marketing. Ainan will never attend such a school, for he is prodigious already, a gift that arose naturally from within him.

What can we expect from such prodigy schools? A group of intensively educated children, with a high level of knowledge, but without, I think, the dimension of gifts characteristic of prodigies. To ask an average child to be a prodigy is a bit like asking the average person to be an Olympic sprint champion: no amount of training is going to get you there - but training will make you faster than you would have been without it. The same thing applies to prodigy schools. No amount of training is going to make you a prodigy if it is unsupported by the appropriate native gifts - but it will make you better at the trained task or subject than you would have been: nothing more and nothing less. I am not sure that is worth the fortune that is asked for by some of these schools.

What are your thoughts on prodigy schools? Will they give Asia an advantage over the Western world - or are they a misguided attempt to thwart nature and create prodigies on demand?