GIFTED CHILDRENS RESOURCE SITE

Welcome to the brand new baby website for SFRM which is attempting to provide a preliminary resource for inquiries about having been "blessed" with a gifted child. Since this website is linked from the home page of SFRM it is open to the general public...which means that if you are a non Mensa parent of a gifted child, you are most welcome. Hopefully this site will provide you with some preliminary reading.

I am simply the librarian and can be reached at dbross@pacbell.net. We will be adding material as fast as we can. There is a tremenous amount of material available through the national organization of Mensa and we will be culling some of it for viewing here but please feel free to contact either myself or Melody Lowman who is our local Gifted Childrens coordinator and a professional psychologist dealing specifically in the area of gifted children. She can be reached at 415-346-9186

Following is our first reprinted article. We will be adding articles as fast as my little fingers can get them in there...but this is the first article that I ran across and is what prompted me to do this website...it seemed to me a sorely needed thing.

TWIG BENDING: MEETING THE NEEDS By Rosemary Timoney from the 8/91 Browbeat

Two stimuli provoked this month's topic. The recent phone call from a justifiably dismayed parent of an exceptionally gifted five year old, and the best discussion in a recently completed course on the Nature of the Gifted Child. Coincidentally, both led to the pros and cons of accelerated versus enrichment as a better means of meeting the needs of the highly gifted child.

It is only fair to acknowledge at the outset that the controversy is both old and heated, and it is definitely unresolved. Both strategies attempt to accommodate the high abilities and individual needs of gifted children, and both lead, in the words of the experts, to "depth, breadth, and the development of creativity and other high-level thinking skills." The experts do, however, tend to divide into camps. Acceleration advocates argue, for example, that "most of the supplemental procedures called "enrichment" and given overly glamourous titles are, even at best, potentially dangerous if not accompanied or followed by acceleration...in subject matter and/or grade" (Julian Stanley, 1978). Stanley and Benlow (1986) referred to kinds of enrichment as "busy work and irrelevant." Harsh judgment, though not entirely unfounded.

On the other side of the argument, Frost (For "Enrichment," 1981) States that enrichment"...Implies a supplementation of the depth, breadth, or intensity of content and process as appropriate to the students' abilities and needs...(and is the prevailing practice because)...of the diversity in meeting student needs."

Typical modes of acceleration are, early admission to kindergarten or first grade, grade-skipping, subject-skipping, early admission to junior or senior high school and/or college, credit by examination (CLEP), college courses in high school (AP), dual enrollment, correspondence courses, and telescoped programs (e.g., the University of Miami's six-year college/medical program). The best known examples of accelerating very bright secondary students are the talent-search programs such as those at Johns Hopkins and Duke with more proliferating in the glow of their success. Obviously or not, there are postive and negative ramifications of each choice. The postiives are the joy of academic challenge, the flexing of intellectual "muscle" and the potential pleasure of meeting like minds. The concomitant problems are the lack of social and emotional peers and the sense of isolation that is almost inevitable if one is a 12 year old college freshman or the only 9th grader in Calculus BC.

As a consequence, the foregoing options, with the exception of AP, which is becoming so popular an option that isolation is no problem, are appropriate for only a very select few. Enrichment, on the other hand, is almost universally available, because there are few social and emotional drawbacks, but, inevitably, enrichment will fall short of the intellectual needs of the few.

As the twig-bender said when reacting to Little Man Tate, Jodie Foster's film on the "severely gifted" child which is still must viewing for anyone involved with such a child, there are no easy answers or simple choices here, but the best possible individual choices cannot be denied. Neither can the consequences of avoiding those choices.

Gifted Children's Coordinator Page
Mozart Babies and Other Theories

The genesis of this column was a question from a young parent about the value of various methods and gadgets purporting to make babies smarter, particularly those referring to the Mozart theory. A recent Newsweek article summarizing research on babies and music made me decide this was a good time to turn that question into an essay. As usual, it was a somewhat rambling reply, which turned into a wide-ranging (some might say rambling) essay. The best book I know of on the subject of infant brain development is Magic Trees of the Mind by Marian Diamond and it goes into much more detail than I can do in a short essay, even one of my long and rambling ones. Dr.Diamond, as a young woman, was the scientist who did the seminal work on growth of rats' brains. At the same time, she was first a mother, then a grandmother, and a volunteer in children's
educational programs so she combines her scientific knowledge with an important understanding of how real children and real families develop. She covers both well-known research and the latest research with discussions of how the carefully limited research findings might relate to real people. I do not agree with her political ideas in the last chapter or two - the fact that so many parents screw up their own lives and consequently their children's does not necessarily mean that the problem is best solved by having the government run people's lives. On that point, some of you may agree more with her than with me, and that discussion is for another time, and that's ok. But up to that point, the book is very sound. It goes in and out of print because it has become so popular, but try Amazon and if
they don't currently have it, either keep trying or try a used book search. Sometimes, paperback is available when hardback is not, so try both.

My own knowledge of research is more oriented to behavioral studies than laboratory studies, but the conclusions come out
remarkably similar. The methods of making smart children that are best supported by solid scientific research turn out to be ones that have been known to wise parents for generations and that don't require any elaborate or modern equipment. First, it is critical that the baby feel emotionally secure in a bonded relationship with its parents (or any other caretakers) and with a knowledge that its basic needs will be met, that it will not be punished for curiosity or for making mistakes, or punished irrationally for reasons it cannot determine. I say this because I occasionally still hear somebody refer favorably to B. F. Skinner's extremely dangerous ideas on child-rearing. A prominent actress (Mariette Hartley) who happens to be related to the only people who were actual children used as experimental subjects by B. F. Skinner and his research partner has recently written a book about her relatives' lifelong inability to cope with life, which she relates to the abuse of being subjected to Skinner's dangerous ideas.

Further supporting evidence comes from Harlow's famous experiment with monkeys raised without mothers, monkeys who came out crazy (to use a lay term that basically sums it up) and unable to form normal monkey relationships, mate, or parent. Fortunately, most sober parents have more sense than to stick with Skinner's uncomfortable ideas for long, although addicts or otherwise disconnected parents sometimes manage similar results by accident. I sometimes see books advocating strict methodologies that do not refer to Skinner but seem to incorporate a lot of his ideas. Watch out for those.

Second, the single most influential factor is to talk with the baby a lot including traditional baby games and a lot of talk
that is not really baby talk but more like a simplified natural language. Although it does not hurt to talk out, in professional language, whatever you are working on either, as long as the baby gets to hear you talk to him. It important that the baby believe you are talking directly to him (or her, I am old enough to have learned a style of grammar that is now considered offensively gender specific) and as he or she grows a little, to have pauses when the baby can try to babble back simulating normal conversation. I think you will not have any trouble with occasional pauses. It is hard to talk to a baby this continuously and you will probably have to work at it, at least at first, when he or she does not seem to respond in any way you can see. Nursery school age games such as counting songs can be adapted to play with babies, by touching each baby finger as you count or by singing something like Hokey Pokey and moving each foot or hand at the right time. But the more you hold her and talk to her, the better the results. There is
a little plaque at knickknack shops that says the dishes can be washed after the baby is grown - it makes an important point, this is not spoiling them, it is sound child-rearing practice. J. McV. Hunt did a very significant study in Iranian orphanages in the 70's that showed literally miraculous results from introducing only one change to their then-current practice, the change of requiring the caretakers to talk to the babies a certain amount of time per day. He had to do the study in Iran because at that time there were no American or European orphanages that were that unenlightened about good child-rearing practices.

Along with talking goes reading to them a lot. Most people think of reading when the child get to pre-school age, but I believe (based on observation, I have not seen any scientific studies) that there is an earlier critical period for reading, maybe around 3-6 months. Children I have known who were read to that early seem to have a lifelong love of reading. If nothing else, it is at least more holding and talking to baby which has been proven valuable. You may find it helpful to point to the words as you say them, or to alternately point to the word and
the picture it refers to. My mother believes this is how I
taught myself to read at an early age in a generation before Sesame Street was invented. She habitually keeps her place by running her finger along under what she is reading and she believes I learned to read by associating the spoken words with what she was pointing to.

In any case, deliberately trying to teach them to read does not seem to work very well. They get stubborn at anything they perceive as even very subtle pressure and even children who have taught themselves to read as toddlers usually refuse to admit it when they realize that other toddlers cannot read - they are also becoming socially aware at this age. You may find it helpful to learn the signs that a baby is feeling pressured, usually a refusal to make eye contact, with more squirming - crying does not come until you have ignored his earlier warning that he doesn't like it. You would be surprised at how many parents persist in pushing an activity even after the child has shown clearly to a knowledgeable observer that he finds it stressful. But they almost never respond this way to simple talking, reading, or listening to music, along with cuddling, and as I said, the talking is an activity that scientific research has proven to be valuable.

The third critical practice that has solid scientific support is not using baby cages - my derogatory term for playpens, high chairs, walkers, swings, etc. Jerome Brunner, working at Harvard in the sixties, attempted to determine what made the difference between the groups he termed the A students and the C students. He studied their lives at earlier and earlier ages and still found two groups distinct in competence levels until he got back to the toddler period. Between approximately 18 mos. and age 3, the A group babies had been allowed to explore freely, roam freely, and touch or manipulate all sorts of objects freely in a basically childproofed house while the C group had been confined to a play pen, high chair, or other such gadget with a limited selection of officially approved toys to manipulate. I personally refused to own a playpen or any other type of baby restraint - to this day, both my mother and my grown children tease me about that. But the temptation to overuse them is tremendous, because it is easier than either watching carefully as a baby crawls free or babyproofing the house. The easiest way to guard against temptation, for me, was not to own it in the first place. I frequently hear young parents justify the baby swing because "he likes it so much." Would you give him a steady diet of cartoons and chocolate cake because he likes it so much?

That the baby likes it does not mean it is a good idea or good for him. Oddly enough, it is the conscientious parents who try to justify the baby swing this way. I would tend to be wary of anything that is easier for you and that you want to justify.
Be especially wary of disguised baby cages such as walkers and swings. Ask yourself this question: is the net result of this gadget to limit a baby's movement and exploration? Because if so, it will limit her mental development. All of us learn from doing, babies or adults. Obviously you have to do something about dangers like fireplaces and stairs, but you can buy or build some sort of cage around the fireplace or the stairway instead of putting the baby in the cage. On the same principle, you should watch out for computerized toys that play for the baby instead of letting her play for herself. The best
toys are the ones where the baby decides what to do and then does something by herself. She develops her brain by deciding something, forming a plan, carrying it out, and observing the results of what she did.

On music, as the original question mentioned, there has been a great deal written about that lately. Here, my position seems a little contradictory. Using a lot of music, of all different types, is something I have believed in since my own grad school years when I wanted to do my thesis on this but could not think of any way to frame it as a good experiment. But even though I believe in it, there is very little scientific evidence. I did use a lot of music for my own babies, even though there was no evidence at all back then and it was only my personal theory. The original Mozart experiment was done with college students showing temporary improvements to math scores after listening to Mozart with a theory proposed that maybe better results would be achieved with babies. To date, there have been no studies with babies. It's funny how a whole industry has grown up around such a little bit of substance. The choice of Mozart for the college students was rather arbitrary and the authors of that study believe that any patterned, moderately complex music would have worked. The leading advocate of Mozart for babies says he advocates Mozart because its patterns are also not very complex - frankly, if I had a brain that was not capable of following the complexities of Dixieland jazz, I would not brag about it. As for music such as rock (which, if you listen to the music, not the beat or the words, is usually very simple), I asked my students in a class on advanced employee training techniques to tell me what rock did for them. They always answered it makes them want to exercise, or dance, or other physical activity - which is probably just as important as math, only different. The point I was trying to get them to come up with themselves, because they would really believe it if they figured it out without my saying it, is that all types of music are valuable but different music is valuable for different reasons. Baroque, classical, and some types of jazz seem to stimulate pattern awareness and awareness of mathematical relationships (probably because these types of music have a highly mathematical structure). I believe in listening with babies or playing with them on their first instruments or dancing with them to all types of music, as much as possible, and as much as talking with them and reading with them.

There is beginning to be some scientific evidence to support the study of piano, in particular, and starting piano not later than age 7, perhaps earlier if the child is socially ready for adult-directed activity. Piano, specifically piano and not other music instruction, seems to develop an awareness of patterns, spatial skills, and geometry important to later math skills, possibly due to the layout of the piano keyboard and how it relates to the layout of printed music. More recent studies have shown that starting either piano or string instruments at this young an age seems to create a thicker and more active corpus callosum, which is the part of the brain responsible for coordinating movements that require both hands and also for coordinating both right-brain and left-brain reasoning styles, and the improved corpus callosum makes permanent brain structures that speed various types of mental processing and might be interpreted as making smarter people. Again, this is exactly what my grandmother (who was my piano teacher) would have told you a hundred years ago based on her experience and observation rather than scientific brain studies. And probably old J.S. Bach, father of twenty children,
would have said the same. Based on his surviving writings, his teaching methods seem to have been very sound and he produced a lot of children who were also important composers.

To get back to the original question, which was how to evaluate theories or gadgets, I would suggest asking yourself the following questions:

Does it actually limit the baby, while claiming to stimulate (excessive structure being a form of limit)?

What does the baby actually do, remembering that we all learn by doing?

Does it look like fun (fun is actually the best way to learn)?

Can I duplicate what this claims to do, by parenting more intensively but in a more natural way, and without buying
anything special?

I suspect you will find that, in most cases, the answer is not a specific theory or a gadget (although some of the better ones are fun and don't hurt anything if you have the excess money - if it's fun for both you and baby, it's good), but a process of more lifelong, naturally good parenting. If you continue to enjoy your child, best quality parenting will come naturally to you and its good results will come naturally to baby.

Patricia Bennett McCormick

Children Learn by Example

You knew that, didn't you?

That's why you mind your manners, budget your money, do your chores, and, most important of all, try not to cuss and yell at the kids when they drop your favorite vase.

But what are you teaching them, by example, when it comes to the joy of lifelong learning?

Of course, you're smart or you wouldn't be reading this. But, tell the truth now. Isn't there a little bit of temptation to rest on your intellectual laurels, get a little bit mentally lazy. After all, you've already qualified for Mensa so you don't have to prove anything any more.

Or maybe, instead, you're the type who dutifully works at all the classes needed to get head in your profession. And you do your own homework conscientiously, setting a good example for the children. But what is this teaching them about the joy of learning?

Showing them how to love learning for its own sake may be more important than making sure they do their homework. It is tough, during the child-rearing years. There's never enough time or enough money. But learning something new just for the fun of it doesn't have to be a big deal or expensive. And the benefits are far-reaching for both you and your children. You renew yourself and you teach them something important.

So maybe take up piano lessons yourself, instead of making your children do it because you always wanted to play the piano. Or take up enthusiastically reading French cooking magazines so you can improve your French and try out some great recipes,
have an adventure and set a good example for your children all at the same time.

Excuse me, now. I don't always practice what I preach, when it comes to setting a good example or anything else. One of the cats has brought a mouse in and I have to go have hysterics until my big, brave, biologist daughter comes home to deal with the problem.

Field biologists have to be able find great intellectual joy in dealing with all sorts of disgusting wildlife, you know. I don't think she learned that part from my example.

In the meantime, y'all can think about what I say and not about what I do.

Beethoven Was an Abused Child --
Some Thoughts on Achieving Balance for Gifted and Talented Children

We frequently see public service commercials holding Ludwig van Beethoven up as a model of gifted achievement and the product of a good teacher. What the authors of these commercial scripts don't tell us and apparently don't know is that Beethoven's primary teacher was his father and that Ludwig van Beethoven was an abused child. As a young child, he was made to practice
the piano 12 to 14 hours a day and was beaten severely if he complained. Is this a model of teaching or parenting that we want to follow?

I used the term "gifted and talented" in the subtitle quite deliberately, not as educational jargon. The truth is that, both in educational jargon and in common language, the two terms "gifted" and "talented" mean something different to us. Think about the labels for a minute and decide for yourself what you feel each means. And to complicate an already complicated situation, gifted children are frequently multi-talented.

This leads us to the continuing dance of seeking appropriate balance in young lives. In our desire to see children achieve their potential, we sometimes overlook how important and difficult a balanced approach is - and especially so for the multi-talented child. Herewith, are some bulleted thoughts on how we can try to manage balance.

"Gifted" and "Talented" are labels. They are not the whole child. They leave out individuality, personality, character, spiritual growth, emotional growth, physical growth, unconditional love between parent and child, and a whole lot of other important realities that we don't want to lose.

We want the child's activities to be developmentally appropriate and for gifted children, developmental appropriateness is a difficult question. We all know we can't just rely on the age indicator on the toy box because gifted children are off-schedule. But they are not evenly and uniformly off-schedule even in intellectual growth, let alone socially, emotionally, and physically. I once dealt with a parent who wanted to start a young girl on piano lessons at junior-high age and then became angry when the child did not practice enough by the parent's ill-informed standards. The problem with this situation is that junior-high age is usually the stage of emotional and social growth that involves exploring every subject shallowly and joining every social group. Any teacher of private lessons will tell you that it is hard to keep committed young musicians, dancers, and artists
at this age and almost impossible to start new students then. Gifted children may go through these stages at the same time as other children or at slightly different times, but they still have to go through the normal stages of social, emotional, and physical development and we are asking for trouble if we do not plan their activities with an awareness of their overall development.

Another frequently-neglected aspect of planning for a talented child's growth is that of physical health, separate from physical development. We are all aware now of carpal tunnel syndrome. Yet many people still do not seem to realize that overly-ambitious practice schedules for young children in the arts and in sports may lead to carpal tunnel syndrome or to even worse forms of crippling. A child's growing body is even more vulnerable to this sort of damage than an adult?s body
is. Find a teacher or coach who is knowledgeable on what sort of practice and performance schedule is safe and trust that person's advice. Beware of the temptation to push for more because your child is "so talented" and might have a professional career. A child who is crippled from inappropriate practice will never have a professional career. In addition,
stress can have consequences for a child's health, just as for an adult's health, and children experience more stress than we realize even before the additional stress of public performance. This is not to say that children should not be encouraged to perform publically, only that we should look for the desirable balance.

Consider the child's total workload. Is the child enrolled in a demanding schedule of all honors or gifted classes, plus private-lesson arts (I have known children enrolled by their parents for two different demanding arts) and a sport and church? All with homework assignments? How many hours a week of work does this add up to? Eighty or a hundred? Would you agree to this kind of work schedule as an adult? For no money? Are you, as a parent, pushing for straight A?s and all-star performance in every area of endeavor? Many teachers are so excited by teaching a gifted child that they expect a heavy workload in their subject alone, without considering that the child may have six other teachers with similar demands, plus an out-of-school life. This reaction is human and understandable, but it may create an impossible situation for the child. Consider what you and your child believe to be most important. Most people consider the option of lowering their expectations in arts or sports, but also consider the opposite approach. It might be all right to accept mediocre grades, even (as shocking as the idea sounds) for an intellectually gifted child, if the child is pushing for achievement and discipline in something the family believes
is more important than schoolwork. Few gifted children are at risk of performing so poorly in school as to be unable to switch gears if they later decide that a career in arts or sports is not for them. Again, the goal is to find an appropriate balance for every individual child. And it will be a different balance for every child because each child is a different individual. I still have a hard time, as an adult, in finding a satisfactory balance among my many areas of endeavor, career, family, artistic development, intellectual development, spiritual development, and physical health.

In conclusion, I want to introduce myself. I am Patricia McCormick and I volunteered to be the new gifted children's coordinator for Lonestar Mensa because it has been a lifelong interest of mine and, with my own children grown, I now feel I have some time to devote to it. Like all Mensans, I was a gifted child. I raised two gifted children to adulthood. In 1974, I earned a Master of Science degree in Family Relations and Child Development from Oklahoma State University. I have
continued my reading and research on the subject of gifted children. I briefly taught nursery school, working with several gifted children, and later taught piano for a short while, before concentrating full-time on the job of raising my own children. I am now an employee development specialist in an agency which hires primarily from the top of the civil service exam so I counsel gifted adults professionally. I believe this to be an advantage because it gives me a vision of the many outcomes of successful adulthood to which we hope to lead gifted children. If you have any topics you would like me to address in future research and share with you, please e-mail them to me at panddmac@io.com

Information and enjoyment for parents, teachers and advocates of gifted children from American Mensa Ltd.
Copyright (c) 2000 Lonestar Mensa. The Mensa logo is a registered trademark of Mensa International Limited and American Mensa Limited, all rights reserved. Mensa does not hold any opinion or have, or express, any political or religious view.

The Gifted Child by Mary Lynn Hallfrom the 3/95 Of Mice and Mensa

How were you perceived as a child? If you were labeled as "gifted" when you went to elementary school, many of your teachers probably responded to you in one of two ways: either you were quite often left to your own devices in the classroom because, since you were so bright, Teacher assumed you could and would handle your work without having to ask questions or get any assistance "I'm lucky to have him/her in my class this year!" or, because you did ask questions and your mind often jumped ahead, Teacher regarded you as a nuisance or a troublemaker, whose agenda it was to be irritating or to make her/him appear incompetent. Oh no, I've got him/her in my class this year! Ironically, gifted children, and often gifted adults, are treated as exceptional not only because of their intellectual abilities, but because of the assumptions most people make about how gifted persons must think and feel about themselves. I believe that many people who do not consider themselves gifted also make assumptions about how bright people regard "normal people". Here are some misperceptions about gifted children I've encountered, as a teacher and therapist:
Bright children don't need as much emotional or moral support as average children do.

Bright children are best left alone, to develop their own resources.

Bright children always want to take over so others will think they're smart.

Bright children love to set up situations which make them look good at others' expense.

Bright children constantly flit from one subject or idea to another, and they don't seem to concentrate long enough on one thing to grasp it.

Aside from intellectual ability, is there such a thing as a "gifted" personality? A child adopts most behaviors and traits to adapt and survive in a confusing, constantly changing and sometimes hostile world. People around the gifted child at one and the same time empower and dis-empower her: superhuman expectations are placed on her intellectual functioning and ability to think like an adult and act accordingly; at the same time, she is often set aside as a confusing, disconcerting individual who is best left alone, and as often as not, prefers to be alone. Gifted children may try to provide emotional safety by staying away from uncomfortable situations and persons, thus giving the impression of being aloof or withdrawn, even at home. The potential result: family conflict, emotional or other abuse, and dysfunctional family relationships. To boost self esteem, gifted children can learn these ideas: See yourself as just right the way you are. Superior intelligence is a very special gift. Spend time with people who empower you, make you feel better when you are with them, and leave you with a good feeling about yourself. Understand that having feelings and showing respect toward yourself is as important as being smart.

Bright Ideas is a newsletter of American Mensa, Ltd.; the print version is published four times each year, for American Mensa's Gifted Children Coordinators, and is distributed free of charge to them and to selected local and national officers.The selections here are from V. 11 No. 1; the April, 1996 issue.

Unless otherwise indicated, all material is copyright 1996 by American Mensa, Ltd. Permission to reprint in other Mensa publications, with credit to author and Bright Ideas, is freely given, unless otherwise noted. Permission to reprint elsewhere must be requested of the Editor in writing; please see the email link indicated.The articles in Bright Ideas come from many sources, but priority is given to articles from Mensa newsletters. Each is credited to the publication in which, to the Editor's best knowledge and findings, it was first printed. Submissions are also welcomed through electronic media.We invite you to spread the word about Bright Ideas; but when you mention us, please specify that Bright Ideas is about gifted children, and for parents, educators and advocates. It is not a publication geared to children; we will be adding content for children as our site evolves.Enjoy!

-- Tabitha Boehmer, Editor

America: Last Place by John Swick,

from the 7/95 Palm-Mensa

It seems the time may almost be here when a majority of Americans will agree with this statement - and perhaps even agree to do something about it, even if it costs money.An article in the November 1991 issue of The Atlantic explores the topic in great detail, and gives some revealing facts. For you Mensans who can absorb these in encapsulated form, here are some:

1. Japan has 243 days in a school year. The lowest amount is Belgium with 160 days. The United States standard is next to lowest, 180 days. Three states require under 175 days.

2. Japan has typically 240 days of instruction, the US considerably less than 180 days because of graduation, assemblies, field trips, etc.

3. By ninth grade, over 47% of Japanese students attend an additional five hours a week at privately tutored schools (=40 days).

4. In 1982, the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement ranked US eighth grade students 10th out of 20 in arithmetic, 12th in algebra, and 16th in geometry. Japan ranked first in all three.

5. In 1988, 71% of US high school students graduated. In Japan, 88% graduated.

6. The average achievement score of the top one percent of US twelfth grade students was lower than any other country where data was available.

7. In 1986, American ten-year-olds ranked 8th, and fourteen-year-olds ranked 14th (among 17,) indicating that they fall farther behind as school progresses.

. In one school, a survey found that at the end of the school year, students were on page 126 of a 400 page math book, and only half way through their social studies book.

9. On the International IEA math exam, Japanese students reported that they had been taught how to solve 92% of the problems in algebra. American students reported they were taught how to solve only 54%.

10. American teachers have opposed legislative efforts to lengthen the school day or year. They criticize "treadmill schedules" that cover the curriculum at all costs and do not provide teachers or students adequate time for reflection and planning. (The implied solution - a reduction in teaching time.)

11. Elementary teachers devote four or more weeks in reviewing and re-teaching material forgotten over the summer vacation.

12. American parents are more likely to agree to the statement: "The tests you take can show how much or how little natural ability you have." and have a stronger belief that their children are born with their math abilities. Japanese and Chinese parents are more likely to agree to the statement: "Everybody in your class has the same amount of ability in math" and that any student can be good at mathematics if he works hard enough. Attributing achievement to aptitude rather than study effort undermines the work ethic in the classroom.

13. In a 1980 survey, less than 5% of Chinese mothers were satisfied with their children's progress. Nearly 40% of American mothers were "very satisfied " - at a time when there were 15 American children in the top 100 fifth graders, and 67 in the bottom.

14. Americans disparage attempts to increase study efforts by excusing failure and by diverting attention with claims that Japanese are imitators, steal technology, and use unfair trade tactics.

15. In answer to supposed stress on students, in 1975, the suicide rate of Japanese in the 10 to 24 age brackets were lower than in the US, and by 1984, had decreased further. In 1959, people were opposed to lengthening the school year 67 to 26.

16. In 1969 people were opposed to extending the school year 67 to 26.

17. In 1989, a poll showed people favored a longer school year 48 to 44.

Americans do seem to favor before and after school activities to keep children occupied, or perhaps watched, and to have meals and health care. A longer school day and year may be a solution to the failure of the American school system to achieve levels reached in other countries who will be our technological and economic competitors in the very near future. This solution may also solve other social problems in a society where both parents work. The bottom line is that it will require a direction of effort, reorganization of teachers' time, and acceptance of higher taxes.