The 2006 Pisa survey on OECD education.

The results of the 2006 Pisa (Programme for International Student Assessment) survey have just been released. They make interesting reading.

The Pisa report is a comprehensive survey of the skills in science, reading and mathematics of 400,000 15 year olds tested in 57 countries around the world. Singapore is not one of them.

The survey is conducted once every three years and serves as a snapshot of international students' comparative abilities.

The OECD is the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. An average performance for the OECD across the three areas was calculated. Before I discuss who was below average, however, I will state the results for the top three positions in each category. There are some surprises, here, at least for me.

In Science:

Finland was no.1. (average score 563)
Hong Kong was no.2 (average score 542)
Canada was no.3 (average score 534)

In Reading:

South Korea was no.1 (average score 556)
Finland was no.2 (average score 547)
Hong Kong was no.3 (average score 536)

In Mathematics:

Taipei was no.1 (average score 549)
Finland was no.2 (average score 548)
Hong Kong and South Korea were equal at No.3 (average score 547).

Now, firstly, it is remarkable that both Finland and Hong Kong appear in the top 3 for all categories. This shows that there is a distinct correlation between performance in each of these areas. Perhaps it reveals that bright students, on average, do well in all subjects. Alternatively, that well-educated students do well on all subjects (depending on whether you ascribe the results to nature or nurture).

32 countries were statistically below the average of all OECD countries in science. These included the United States, Spain and Italy.

Greece, Portugal, Spain, Italy and, oddly, given Finland's astonishing all-round performance, Norway, were below the OECD average in reading.

For mathematics, the United States, Italy, Spain, and Portugal were all below the OECD average.

Interestingly, South Korea beat Finland in reading. This is notable because Finland topped the reading results in both Pisa 2000 and Pisa 2003. Even more interesting, for what it says about the education system in South Korea is the source of the improvement. South Korea improved its average, not by bringing up the performance of the lower end students - whose quality of work remained essentially unchanged - but by enhancing the performance of its more able students. The stellar students shine more brightly in South Korea.

It seems to me that the South Korean approach is more likely to result in truly capable adults, who are able to do something worthwhile. As a nation, they seem to be aiming for peak performance of their best students. Most countries (like the United States and its famous - or infamous - No Child Left Behind Act) appear to aim at strengthening their weakest students. I think this has limited utility from the point of view of getting the best out of a student population. The results of Pisa 2006 seem to show this, with the United States lagging behind most other nations in Science and Mathematics.

The students were generally asked to carry out paper and pencil tasks, in the three areas of Science, Reading and Mathematics.

One of the most interesting results of this study is that Canada came third in Science, but the United States was below average for an OECD country. I am not familiar with the differences between the Canadian systems and the US systems. Perhaps a reader of this blog post can enlighten both myself and my readers by suggesting why Canada came third but the United States was below average. Do Canadians spend more time on Science than US students? Are they just more gifted at it? Is the education system simply better in general? I would welcome any insights on the conundrum.

(If you would like to learn more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, a scientific child prodigy, aged eight years and no months, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, four years and five months, and Tiarnan, twenty-two 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, College, University, Chemistry, Science, genetics, left-handedness, precocity, child prodigy, child genius, baby genius, adult genius, savant, gifted adults and gifted children in general. Thanks.)

Fast learners, misdescription and underestimation

I was struck recently by a phenomenon which gifted children are likely to encounter: their misdescription by others.

Now, what do I mean by this? Well, often gifted children are faster learners than other people. The more gifted the child, the faster they can learn. This leads to a very interesting phenomenon: no-one will make a correct description of the child, unless they have met them very recently.

I will explain. You see, if a child is growing, learning and changing very fast and continues to do so, then anyone who meets them is meeting them at a particular point of development. When they are later asked to describe the child, they will describe as they were on that day. Yet, if weeks or months have passed since then, the description will be out of date. For the most gifted of children, this disparity could be great indeed.

I will give an example. Recently, in an interview, a Professor said of Ainan: "I have no doubt he is a Chemistry prodigy". He then went on to say things which he knew, for sure, Ainan understood.

I was immediately struck by how much Ainan had changed in his level, since this Professor had interviewed him, 9 months before. He was talking about a different child. The child he talked about was basically at High School graduation level but the child he had since become is at College Graduation level in the American system (that is at a Major in Chemistry level, Bachelor's). Big difference.

(Note that a British style Undergraduate degree covers American style Graduate material - sometimes even with a research component, depending on course.)

Yet, anyone reading that could misperceive Ainan.

This will happen with any of the most gifted children - but it will still happen, to a degree to those of more moderate gift.

In speaking of gifted children, therefore, we must never forget to ask ourselves: how much has that child grown since I last spoke to him/her in detail? The answer could be "far more than you could imagine."

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

Left-handedness and divergent thinking

My son, Ainan, 7, is left-handed. Curious to what degree left-handedness may contribute to his creative, prodigious gifts, I have been doing some research. What I have found is of interest to any parent of a left-handed person, anyone who is left-handed, or anyone who is interested in the nature of giftedness, talent and genius.

A study by Dr. Stanley Coren entitled: "Differences in Divergent Thinking as a Function of Handedness and Sex" in The American Journal of Psychology, Vol. 108, No. 3 (Autumn, 1995), pp. 311-325 doi:10.2307/1422892 looked into the matter of whether left-handedness had any association with divergent thinking, and how this was correlated with the sex of the left-handed person.

Various tests were administered to the subjects. Test 1 concerned Alternate Uses; test 2 was of Object Synthesis and Test 3 was of Ideational Flexibility. The final test was a test of convergent thinking (traditionally measured by IQ tests).

There was no correlation between left-handedness and performance on the Alternate Uses test. However, on the second and third tests (which were both measures of kinds of divergent thinking), there was a strong, positive correlation between left-handedness and performance in the test. Interestingly, the more left-handed (or sinistral, as it is termed, scientifically) the subject the better their performance in these tests. The fourth test of convergent thinking was also revealing in that there was no benefit to sinistrality in this test: subjects of both left and right-handedness performed similarly.

This experiment shows that left-handers have a distinct advantage in tasks involving divergent thinking, compared to right-handers - but show no difference in their ability to handle convergent tasks.

What, practically speaking does this mean? Well, one conclusion, that is glaring for me, is that conventional tests of ability of left-handed kids, might overlook their gifts. You see, IQ tests only address convergent thinking ability. Left-handers have a strength in divergent thinking. Thus testing for gifted programmes and the like would tend to underestimate the left-handed children because their strength - divergent thinking - will not reveal itself in conventional testing. Thus a gifted child, in the truest sense of the word, might be overlooked if they are left-handed, for they will have a hidden talent, not obvious to the conventional tests.

This evidence that left-handed people are stronger in divergent thinking agrees perfectly with what I have observed in Ainan since his birth. He has a very strong aptitude for divergent thinking (allied to a very strong aptitude for convergent thinking, too, I might add). This divergence of thinking shows itself in everything that he does - he is always coming up with new ideas and new ways and new understandings, while learning, observing or just thinking aloud to me.

Interestingly, history has many examples of good divergent thinkers who were left-handed: Leonardo da Vinci, Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein, Picasso, and H.G. Wells, for instance. It is telling that the two greatest physicists of all time, should both have been left-handed. Curious, that.

So, if your child is left-handed, do not be concerned, be happy - or even excited. Left-handedness confers a strength in divergent thinking that equips the gifted child to think in new and better ways. Such a child may grow up to do many things not open to the conventionally gifted child whose strength is convergent thinking alone.

By the way, Stanley Coren's study showed NO correlation between handedness and divergent thinking for girls. This correlation only applied to the boys.

(If you would like to read more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, 7 years and 8 months, a scientific child prodigy, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, 4 years and 1 month, or Tiarnan, 18 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, genetics, left-handedness, child prodigy, child genius, baby genius, adult genius, gifted adults, and gifted children in general. Thanks.)

Educational testing and intellectual performance

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The tyranny of tests

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Taking several IQ tests.

From some of the comments I see all over the internet, it is clear that some parents of gifted children - or non-gifted children - get their children to take several IQ tests. I even hear of children being tested every six months or so. Is this a useful practice and what are the dangers?

Well, IQ is supposed to be quite stable throughout life, that is, it shouldn't change much. So, it does seem unnecessary to keep on taking tests. In some cases the parents appear to have children who are less than official cut-offs for gifted programmes - perhaps they are hoping that a "good" test, will take them over the threshold. In others, there seems to be a perception that the child's progress needs to be tracked in this way.

Whatever the motivation for this repeated testing, there is a common danger, which posts also reveal. There is a tendency among some school systems and a large number of professionals to judge the child on the LOWEST test result. I find this absurd, for it has no sound reasoning behind it. They seem to think that the child's "true" ability is measured by their least performance. This doesn't make sense. There are many reasons why a child could under-perform on a particular day: tired, bored, unmotivated, resistant to the test, ill - etc. There are any number of reasons why under-performance could occur - but what reasons could there be for OVER-performance? What is going to make a child perform above the level of their intelligence? Nothing at all - unless they have done a particular test before, quite recently, in which case there will be an increase from familiarity with the test. (Which is why frequent testing on a particular instrument is frowned upon - and often discounted.) Apart from this possible influence, there is nothing that can make a child do better than they should have done - but there are many things that could make a child under-perform.

Given this background, it is clear that those practitioners and school systems that insist on judging a child on the lowest test result are guilty of an injustice. Their reasoning does not make sense. A child's true ability will be closer to the HIGHEST test result obtained - unless that test result was obtained from multiple testing of the same instrument in quick succession (which could raise it a little, but not much).

So, if you have more than one IQ test result and a school system is judging your child - point out the logic above. A child can easily under-perform - but there is just no way they can over-perform.

Then again, if they don't listen to you and you continue to test multiply it is clear that you will decrease the lowest test result obtained - because you will have more chance of catching your child on an off day. Thus the more frequently you test, the more results you will get - and the more chance you will have that one of them will be unusually low, for whatever reason. Ironically, therefore, those who test their child multiply are exposing their child to the risk of being underestimated.

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.

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.