Swann Family = 10 Children with MA at age 16! Book Review & Discussion Thread

[nee1]

Thank you for your response, Mandab. I appreciate your insights.

I did ponder if requiring the child to read aloud his books to the parent would not accomplish the same purpose as the parent reading aloud to the child. (That said, I also know that a child's comprehension will be way above his reading level, so when the parent reads aloud to the child, the child gets to learn from books he is not be able to read yet). In the book ``Marva Collins Way'', I learnt that Marva Collins required that her students read all their books out loud, be it literature, history or science. This is what she said:

I have them [the students] read aloud every day so I can check pronunciation as well as comprehension. Having children read silently in class only allows their mistakes to go unnoticed. I have heard children read capa-city for capacity, denny instead of deny, or doze instead of does, treating the final s as though pluralized the word doe. Children frequently reverse letters when they read. For example, they confuse sacred and scared, diary and dairy, angel and angle. If children read silently, they continue to make those mistakes.

Another reason for reading aloud is to build vocabulary. A child reading silently skips over big words he doesn't know. When I am there listening to a child read, I can interrupt to ask the meaning. The whole class benefits as we can look up  the definition, the base word within the larger word, and the part of speech. I also have my students read aloud for tone, inflection and punctuation. Reading aloud helps a student realise the difference between a comma, a period, a question mark, and an exclamation point. Children who are just learning to read tend to read individual words, not groups of words or phrases. That limits comprehension. By reading aloud children learnt to understand words within the context of a sentence, and they see how words connect with each other to express an idea. This practice promotes not only good reading but good writing.

My students read everything orally - literature, science, social studies, and history. I even have them read their compositions aloud every day. It makes children more conscious of sentence structure, allows them to proofread for punctuation errors and word omissions, and helps them develop a certain presence and authority in front of an audience.

QUOTE ENDS.


Question 1:  Do you require your two oldest children to read aloud all their books to you, the way Marva Collins did? Or do you require reading aloud from them only when the books are very high above their level? I ask because I’m curious how you juggle it with multiple kids. Arthur Robinson (of Robinson curriculum) highly recommends oral learning, which is very similar to a child reading his advanced books out loud. In the Robinson method, the child reads the book out loud to (and teaches) an imaginary classroom, not the parent. So there is something to oral learning. What oral learning strategies do you implement with your children, and how do you implement them?


Question 2: Marva Collins, in the above excerpt, makes a connection between reading aloud by the child and the child becoming a good writer. Andrew Pudewa, on the other hand, made a connection between reading aloud by the parent and the child becoming a good writer.  You can read more of his insights here – http://iew.com/help-support/resources/articles/one-myth-and-two-truths.  So, both Marva Collins and Pudewa have similar points, which is this: hearing words read out loud makes a child a better writer. The difference between the Marva Collins and Pudewa recommendation is the person doing the reading. In Marva's case, the child does the reading out loud, every day and for all subjects: composition, literature, science, social studies, and history. In Pudewa's case, the parent does the reading out loud. My question is: which strategy would provide the most academic success? Any thoughts on this?
 

And finally, what did you think of Andrew Pudewa's reasoning that good readers don't neccessarily make good writers. The best writers (as evidenced from his experiences with his son) are usually people that have heard a lot of complex and interesting words read out aloud. I found that insight very interesting. Do listen to his audio file ``Nurturing Competent Communicators''  that I had linked previously and let me know what you think. Here is a link to an article where he explained the concept. The article is titled: ``One myth and two truths'' - http://iew.com/help-support/resources/articles/one-myth-and-two-truths.  

[PokerDad]

I haven't had a chance to listen to any of the podcasts (thank you for posting them!), but I can give some comment on what I think.

Writing is in some part, an auditory experience. The writer takes auditory words (for me I hear them in my mind as I go) and puts them down into sentences, paragraphs, and passages. These pieces are constructed from familiar patterns (stuff you can hear in your mind). How does it get there? By hearing it. Reading aloud will do this as will listening, but I do think reading aloud means the reader has to "produce" the sounds which should be a bit more powerful.

Of course reading aloud is very important for students. We've started doing read aloud with Cub. At night, he reads me a book, and then I read one. This allows me to really know where he's at. I can even gauge his comprehension some by his inflections (usually lack of inflection). We just got our BK AESOP books yesterday, and he liked the first one so much that after I read to him, he requested the aesop book again and he wanted to read it. I guess good habits start early.

 

[Mandabplus3]

Question 1- if I required my children to read aloud every book to me I would need a lot more hours in my day and probably a clone as well! They're ad so everyday much I have no hope of hearing it all. Even hearing all of one child's reading aloud would be close to impossible, even my youngest has been known to regularly read 10 books in  a sitting. ( usually DR Zuess he loves DR Zuess!)
I require my oldest (10) to read aloud the first chapter of any book she reads that I think could be a challenge for her vocabulary wise. After the first chapter we can usually tell if she can continue alone or if we need to read it together. We don't often read aloud more than the first chapter as she has a great grasp of English and high vocabulary understanding.
My second ( will always choose an easy girly low level book unless I assign her something with some meat in it. So for her anything above her reading level ( usually classics) we buddy read chapter by chapter or page by page. I require one chapter of challenging material a day out loud, either her or I reading.
My youngest (6)  loves to buddy read so we do it page by page every night at the moment. He follows along with the word on my read to learn new ones. He says I read too fast but he like it that way  he is getting glasses next week it will be interesting to see what changes after.
All three kids listen to 20 minutes of audio books almost every day in the car. These are usually quite advanced but sometimes easy cultural short stories. I look for different styles of writing for these whenever I can. Aiming to increase the variety of quality writing they hear.
I see no reason to make a child read to an empty room. I consider that quite degrading in some ways. There are plenty of audiences around beyond an empty room. I do make them read aloud from all different genre because I found a distinct lack of correct pronunciation the first time my oldest read a Science text out loud to me.
Question 2- I am sure somewhere in one of those Audios Andrew Pudewa mentioned that reading aloud forces children to concentrate on the words, order, breaks and flow and that this is the same skill used as when copying or writing. I am pretty sure he agrees that reading aloud helps with writing HOWEVER reading aloud limits children to their own level of reading, which limits their writing advancement. Children need to hear sentences ABOVE the level they can write at to advance. For this reason it's important to read TO them as well. So I definitely think reading TO your children at a higher reading level than they can handle independently would gain more academic success.
I have seen first hand the difference hearing quality content made to my kids writing. I would love to have more time to read to them.
Plus they love it. Every time I start to read aloud to one they all abandon their books and come to listen! 
I am not at all convinced of pudewas comments re good readers not making good writers etc. I truely believe most children are perfectly capable of internalising good writing structures directly from their reading I think the key to this taught of his might be in WHAT the children choose to read. If all they read are daisy meadows fairy Books then they are never going to make great writers. Children who read broadly, voraciously and include challenging classics will make good writers. This is precisely what the Robinson Curriculum success is based on actually.
I attended a writers festival last weekend. Every talk we heard (Mem Fox, Sally Rippin, Missy Higgins! and many others) had the same underlying idea. To be a good writer one needs to read widely and voraciously. Widely meaning from all genre and voraciously meaning everything you can get your hands on. Just like our kids 

[nee1]

Thank you so much, Pokerdad and Mandab, for your excellent insights. Very much appreciated.


Mandab, just to clarify the bit about Robinson requiring the child to teach an empty room. He used this strategy when his son had completed the curriculum books and was now studying hard-core University science textbooks at home. The son in question, Noah, was having difficulty mastering the concepts in the physics textbook, "Beyond the Mechanical Universe''. He was 17 years old at the time.  ``Beyond the Mechanical Universe'' was a textbook used in the later part of freshman year at California Institute of Technology (CalTech)  by students 2 years older than Noah. Further, those students received tutoring from the professors teaching the course.
 
So, all in all, ``Beyond the Mechanical Universe'' was an advanced text for a 17 year old who was going to teach himself this textbook at home. The father, Art Robinson, stumbled on the method called "oral learning'' in which the child reads aloud a small portion of the textbook, and explains it to an imaginary classroom. Noah started applying this strategy to "Beyond the Mechanical Universe'', and his error rate dropped from 30% to 0%.  He now understood the book much better than when he had been reading it silently.

Here are Robinson’s exact words as published in his ``Access to Energy'' Magazine:

"I noticed that Noah was experiencing a difficulty identical to my own experience when I was his age. One reads the book but doesn't really absorb it. Problem solving becomes an exercise in scrambling back through the text looking for formulas and combining these with computing tricks such as dimensional analysis. As the physics advanced, his error rate grew as high as 30%.

Then we read The Overnight Student by M. L. Jones, available from Louis Publishing, 1105 Inverness Lane, Bellingham, WA 98226. This book advocates that the student become an oral teacher of an imaginary class.

Noah tried this. Now, for about an hour each day, he closets himself in the press room where we have installed the equipment used to print and mail Access to Energy. There, he teaches the physics orally in small segments to an imaginary audience as he reads through the book. Students are naturally shy. None of us has heard him do this.

The result -- his study time is reduced; he understands the material better; and his problem solving error rate has fallen essentially to 0%.''  


Here is the link where you can find the above quote - http://www.garynorth.com/public/1893.cfm.  More explanations are given by Gary North. He references Noah Robinson, gives details on the oral learning strategy, and how it helped Noah ace his GRE exams. And here is another relevant link, still on Gary North's website - http://www.garynorth.com/public/1900.cfm. This one is titled "Lecturing to the Wall.'' He references Noah Robinson again here.

Overall, Art Robinson's reasoning was that when a teacher teaches a difficult concept orally to a class, the teacher gets to understand the concept the most. He mentioned (in the course of study notes on the Robinson Curriculum) that when he taught freshman chemistry as a University lecturer, he as the teacher learnt the most. The act of explaining the information orally to his students gave him a deeper understanding of the concepts.

He went on to say that in the home, a child may not have an audience to teach his advanced textbooks to. By getting Noah to teach that textbook out loud to an imaginary classroom, Noah got the same benefit that every teacher gets from teaching a subject - the benefit of deeper understanding. Art followed the same strategy with his other kids as they hit the advanced science courses, and it seemed to work well for them.

Notice that Marva's students did something similar. In Marva's school, the children read advanced books, and since the books were likely to be above the students' initial levels, the students were required to read them out loud.  That way, they got to understand the material better. And that coincides with what PokerDad said in the second paragraph of his post above, that ``Reading aloud [by the learner] will do this as will listening [to someone read out to you], but I do think reading aloud [by the learner] means the reader has to "produce" the sounds which should be a bit more powerful.’’


More thoughts?  Please share them. Thank you.

[Mandabplus3]

Ok that makes a bit more sense. At 17 reading to an empty room could be explained. I was imaging in my 8 year old feeling like  a complete idiot reading to an empty room and it made me feel very uncomfortable. 
I understand the concept behind the method. It would work if it was the only option available. Really though I would be looking to buddy read that book with someone else. 2 heads thinking are better than one. Read a section discuss with partner. Continue. Or alternatively reada. Section reword it and write notes. This would be slower but ultimately more effective for most children I think. I don't write of the he method entirely but I just think there are better ways that don't make you feel so stupid!  can you imagine reading such a complex book to an empty room? I don't think I would enjoy it one bit. Others might not mind as much I guess.

[PokerDad]

Looks like Robinson was describing the Feynman Technique without mentioning its name. The eponymous strategy was described and used by Feynman to spot his weaknesses. The gist is to figure out what you want to learn and then attempt to teach it (or explain, paraphrase, etc) and when or where this breaks down is where the understanding gap lies.

Google it for more information

[Korrale4kq]

I have used a method similar to this for years. I learn best by teaching. I learnt about this technique when I was in 5th grade. I was in a 5th-6th-7th composite class and one of the things my teachers had the older students do is to teach the younger students. I learnt short division from a 6th grader. It helped the older students master their work and it helped us younger students by getting som swift one on one. This was a special class and by the end of the year all the class members were at least a year ahead of grade level.

I used this same method with a girl I was tutoring. I had her teach James stuff when James was younger. Sadly James is about on par with her now. She is 12 and I don't want to crush her spirt by teaching almost level grade with a 4 year old.
I also have James teach the little one I watch. He is teaching him colors, shapes, math and reading via their play.

[nee1]

I stumbled on this excellent podcast ``The genius of homeschooling'' - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7a_l4W1FXE  and the corresponding article titled ``Homeschooling - The environment for genius'' - www.drwile.com/Genius.pdf. Please watch the video (it's about 12 minutes) and read the article (it's only 2 pages). Very interesting insights overall.

So, I decided to chase up the author/article referenced above. The  article is titled ``Childhood Pattern of Genius'' by Harold McCurdy. Here is where you can download the article - http://dc.lib.unc.edu/cdm/ref/collection/jncas/id/2279 . It's excellent reading.  To download the article, wait a few minutes for the page to load completely. Then click the article to save it onto your computer. The article begins at the bottom of page 1, so scroll down to get to the article. The article is titled ``The Childhood Pattern of Genius'' by Harold McCurdy.

Whether one homeschools or not, knowing the childhood pattern of genius helps immensely, though admittedly, homeschooling provides the best environment for modelling the success of those geniuses.

An excerpt from the summary of ``Childhood Pattern of Genius'' says:
"The present survey of biographical information on a sample of twenty men of genius suggests that the typical development pattern includes these important aspects: (1) a high degree of attention focused upon the child by parents and other adults, expressed in intensive educational measures and usually, abundant love; (2) isolation from other children, especially outside the family; (3) a rich efflorescence of fantasy [i.e. creativity] as a reaction to the preceding conditions....

It might be remarked that the mass education of our public school system is, in its way, a vast experiment on the effect of reducing all three of the above factors to minimal values, and should, accordingly, tend to suppress the occurrence of genius." QUOTE ENDS.



Please read the above materials and share your thoughts. Thank you.

[srg]

I have read the links...Interesting read. The author actually says the first born or those born after a gap helped them become a genius. He reasons that those children spend more time with adults/access to adult books..


(1) a high degree of attention focused upon the child by parents and other adults, expressed in intensive educational measures and usually, abundant love

I think this has a huge impact compared to the other points.

.

[srg]

Isolation from other children'

I differ on this. I have observed that the second and third siblings are faster learners( due to learning environments and patters being more set?)

I also like to add  that I have learnt a lot from this thread and ther other one ' we can do , Moche Kai saxon math with Robert levy'

Definitely keepers with gems about education and learning of children , even later on in life

Is there a way to save topics?

[nee1]

Hi srg,

Thanks for your thoughts.

Point 1)`` A high degree of attention focused upon the child by parents and other adults, expressed in intensive educational measures and usually, abundant love''

Point 2) ``Isolation from other children, especially  OUTSIDE the family''.

Siblings are within the family, and the geniuses associated with them. The article clearly said most of them had very close relationships with their siblings.  An excerpt on page 452 said:
 

Warm attachments to children outside the family circle seem to have been rare, and there are several cases of isolation within the family, too. Yet it is within the family that most of the recorded intimacies between these geniuses and other children developed. Goethe, Pascal, Niebuhr, Macauley, Voltaire, and Mirabeau experienced some intensity of affection for sisters; Musset for his older brother. Macauley and Voltaire remained attached to their favourite sisters throughout their lives, becoming devoted uncles to their sister’s children; Goethe’s and Pascal’s affection for their younger sisters approached passion; and Mirabeaus speaks of incestuous relations with his.

The reality and nature of the pattern to which I am pointing – the very great dominance of adults in the lives of these children, and their isolation from contemporaries outside the family, and sometimes, within- can be adequately appreciated only through a more detailed statement about each individual….''

In my opinion, Point 2 mattered.  If you've read the book ``The Nurture Assumption'', you'll realise that Point 2 matters more than most people think. PokerDad started a thread where ``The Nurture Assumption'' was discussed - http://forum.brillkids.com/coffee-corner/3-very-impressive-books-that-have-changed-my-outlook-on-post-el-life/.  


Again, in the book ``The Education of Karl Witte'', you'll see all three factors (especially Point 1 and 2) in Karl Witte's upbringing. Karl Witte was a child prodigy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Witte).  See more on Karl Witte in ``Give your child a superior mind'' by Siegfried Engelmann - www.zigsite.com/PDFs/SuperiorMind.pdf. An excerpt from ``Give your child a superior mind” says:  

 Young Karl entered Leipzig at 9. He received his Ph.D. at 14, his Doctor of Laws degree at 16. He was immediately appointed to the teaching staff of the University of Berlin. At 23 he became a full professor at the University of Breslau, and he remained there for the rest of his life, building a reputation as a teacher, writer and scholar.

 Anyway, in the book ``The Education of Karl Witte'', ( https://archive.org/details/educationkarlwi01wiengoog), the book authored by Karl’s father, there is in fact an entire chapter on Point 2. Chapter 14 is titled ``Must Chidren Play Much with Other Children?'', and his father said:

Since I was repeatedly informed that Karl should have a playmate, for otherwise he  would not enjoy his childhood and would get tired, ill-humored, or even stubborn, I finally gave in and, with the aid of my wife, chose, one after the other, two somewhat  grown girls who at that time were apparently the best-behaved children in the whole com-munity. They sang, danced, and played with him, and he naturally was happy.

But the same child that heretofore had never been stubborn and had never told an untruth, now learned both. He also became accustomed to coarse expressions, and grew arbitrary and domineering, because these  girls, who came to us on account of some small advantage to them, did not oppose him.

Our assurances that we should be happy if they did not give in to his will, but let us know of his arbitrariness, did no good. Their years, their social standing, their education, and the prejudices which are inseparable from it made them deaf against it, and we had to banish them.

It is indeed a foolish and highly injurious idea that children cannot be merry without other children.

It is only natural for them to wish to be with children, for with them they need not be so careful about their thoughts, inclinations, talks, and actions, and they are not guarded and supervised so constantly. But one need only be a child with them, need only take part in merry jests, let the children now and then get the upper hand and be more clever, by allowing them to occupy a place of greater dignity, and so forth, and they will feel just as happy playing with older persons, will learn to avoid naughty things, and will  not so easily take any harm.

Worst of all it is to make playmates out  of uneducated children, especially without any close observation. I have constantly  found the troubles, which I mentioned in regard to Karl, repeated in other families as  well, and even worse troubles. The virtues of the well-brought-up child pass over less readily to the ill-brought-up children than the faults of the latter infect the still unspoiled child, for virtues demand, at least in the beginning, effort and self-control, because they are contrary to our inclinations and passions.  But faults are more easily adopted, because our sensuousness naturally leans that way, and  the bad example of the little friend acts as an encouragement.

Most dangerous of all is the being together in an institution or public school. In regard to the latter it has been a settled principle for more than thirty years, observed by every sensible father, not to send his child, without the most urgent necessity, to the lower classes of the same, because there are more ill-brought- up children there than in the upper classes.

So long as our schools are not at the same time schools of moral training, so long as the pupils, from the first moment to the last (more especially in the recesses, as well as before and after school), are not constantly under the supervision of a teacher, the experienced father would gladly sacrifice all attendance at school, if the mass of information, which a large number of teachers can impart, did not make the instruction given by each of them in his specialty so desirable.

One ought to take but a very few children, say two or three, under one's charge, when the supervision could be made successful. If one, for financial reasons, wishes to take fifteen to twenty, one should keep enough teachers to have but two or three under the charge of one.

If none of these precautions have been taken, the faults which have been brought together from all the corners of the world must soon become the common possession, to outgrow and crush the few virtues which are present.

It is rank stupidity to imagine that children cannot be agreeable and sociable unless they all the time go around with other children. I have repeatedly found the very opposite to be the truth.

Karl and every child that was treated in the same way, were by that very treatment made more yielding, and it was, therefore, no hardship for them to have to yield. Other children tease what they want out of their playmates in various ways, and so become accustomed to self-assertion. From this there grow shrewdness, simulation, untruth, quarereling, stubbornness, hatred, envy, haughtiness, aspersion, fighting, calumniation, etc. A  child remains quite free from all these, so long as he plays only with his parents or with other sensible persons.

Naturally the opportunity for coming together with children is not excluded, but their commingling should occur only now and then, and under supervision. Such an occasional meeting, when all the reserve has not been thrown off, can do no harm. Karl has had many a chance for meeting children under such circumstances during his longer or shorter journeys.

He got along so well with them that they invariably became very fond of him and nearly  always parted from him with tears in their eyes. Having become accustomed to calm, merriment, order, and sensible reasoning, even in his games, he observed these virtues also when with other children. There was for him no ready cause for quarreling. On the contrary, he frequently avoided it by clearing away misunderstandings, or put an end to it by prayers, sensible arguments, and so forth. Since he never quarreled at home with any one, such action appeared to him repulsive and unseemly. He felt that quarreling put an end to playing, nor was his blood roused by daily recurring quarrels. He consequently did not so easily become excited, nor did his blood boil as easily as that of children constantly quarreling and fighting with one another. He knew nothing of that anger which so frequently puts an end to children's playing. He remained calm, while others grew excited. Not even the naughtiest of boys could ever have brought him so far as to make him swear or fight.

Nearly all the children, boys and girls, who knew him more intimately became fond of him. There was but one opinion about him,  that he was very amiable and could get along well with others. I do not know a single case, not even in his maturer years, of his having quarreled with one of his many youthful friends, or of having fallen out with them, although many an occasion offered itself for it during his investigation, and even lively discussion, of learned subjects. I may say there should have been such occasions, because his opponents were usually considerably older than he.

He generally sided with his betters, and these betters knew him well, hence that intimate respect and love which they still have for him. Their mutual relations have frequently moved me to tears. My thanks are due to these worthy young men for having so tenderly and lastingly clung to him. They are sure of my respect and of his.

People would, therefore, do well to drop that harmful prejudice that children can be made happy and merry only by playing with other children. With the same right one may say that they should be left much in the company of the servants, for they like to be in their company for similar reasons, whereas, who would be so rash as to abandon them to servants, except in a case of dire necessity?

QUOTE ENDS.


Point 3) -  ``A rich efflorescence of fantasy [i.e. creativity] as a reaction to the preceding conditions.''

Point 3 was a direct result of point 1. The article says: ``There is an effect of this constant intercourse with the adult world which may be especially important in the development of genius. Not only is there an increase of knowledge, which is the usual aim of the instructors, there is also, in many cases, a profound excitement of imagination. Even John Stuart Mill confesses that he did not perfectly understand such grave works as the more difficult dialogues of Plato when he read them in Greek at seven. What, then, happens to such adult material pouring into the child's mind? Mill does not eludicate his own case, but there is evidence in a number of biographies before me that the dynamic processes of phantasy go to work on it and richly transform both what is understood and what is not.''  QUOTE ENDS

Imagination resulted from the abundance of knowledge acquired from adults and the adult books they read. I disagree with the lady in the podcast I posted above that putting away the curriculum materials and playing with Legos would help imagination. I would only agree with her if the curriculum materials she meant were workbooks and ``fill-in the blank'' type of books.   ``Living books'' (a Charlotte Mason term), are especially excellent reading, and may give a child a lot of fodder for imaginative thoughts. The more knowledge a child has, the better and more improved the child's imagination will be. In the children's classic ``A Little Princess'' (http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/146), the protagonist,  Sara Crewe,  had a very rich imaginative life because she was very widely read. She could visualise she was in the Bastille because she was widely read about the French Revolution. You can't imagine things you know nothing about. And you get that knowledge by reading excellent books.

So, in my opinion, Point 1 and 2 mattered. Point 3 derived from Point 1.


Thoughts?

[PokerDad]

The Nurture Assumption gave me a lot of insight into these educational "miracles" (my term) that we read a lot about.

The title of this thread, the Swann family, is a perfect example of what I'm about to say. These miracle cases such as the Swanns, the Hardings, Rafe Esquith's Hobart's Shakespeareans, and Marva Collins' Westside Prep all have one key ingredient in common. They are all educational enclaves that can be viewed through the prism of thesis like the one in Nurture Assumption. Stated another way, these are groups that are distinct in identity and social mores from the remaining pool of child peers.

Put differently and perhaps harshly, if you place your child into the social blender, you will eventually have a child that reflects the pool of children in their environment. In such a situation, ridiculous (far right tail of the curve) outcomes educationally become far more rare and I'd argue extreme virtues and arete would also be rare.

Your child becomes a blend of the people they hang around, and the longer they hang around a particular group, the more fixed this blending becomes. Fortunately, you do have some choice as to what ingredients (groups) you place your child with.

I'm not surprised that this old researcher apparently discovered this mechanism by studying prolific child prodigies that went on to become some of the best minds in their generation. The only aberrant child in the group being Voltaire. I do wish, however, that he had used more than twenty children to make his case - there would be many left out that could arguably sway his observation some.

[srg]

@ nee1

I was just referring to

"In particular Galton who was not prone to overemphasise environment, thought enough of order of birth to pay some heed to it in his investigation of British scientists; and he comments that " the elder sons have, on the whole, decided advantage of nurture over the younger sons. "
And he also says how the elder ones are regarded as companions by their parents, take responsibilities earlier are more exposed to adult environment.
Anyways your point taken
The peer group And parental attention play a significant role for the children in their lives.

[Micklereed]

Hi all,
  I hope all is well. I am back on brillkids site from a very long hiatus. I was wondering if anyone knows how to handle state laws inference to children like the Swanns, the Hardings and etc.? This is unfortunate, but, most states in America don't allow children to leave highschool until the age of 18. The only way they will is if the child was pregnant or has to be the breadwinner if the family is going through some type of family illness. How would a family accomplish what these families have done with a child that is already on this track but the state doesn't allow the child to graduate from highschool until the reach the age of 18? My state calls this No child left behind. This is why most gifted children parents call no child left behind, gifted children left behind, because gifted children needs aren't being met. I think that a family would have to do some type of dual enrollment but most college/university dual enrollment is the traditional sophomore year of highschool.

I am going to continue reading this thread but most people don't talk about this part of the equation. There are probably more families out there that have been in this kind of situation ("this track") but couldn't continue because their state played a factor.

Does anyone have any thoughts on this? Please share. I could love to hear some useful advice. Thanks.

[Korrale4kq]

That is  not necessarily true. In many states they have to be a sophomore in high school or only around 15. With homeschool one could consider a child to be doing sophomore work much younger than 15. They still have to test out with a high school exit exam though.
Every state differs. I know many regular track public school students that graduated at 16 or 17.

document.getElementById('recent_loading').style.display = 'none';document.getElementById('recent_page_box').style.display = '';

Page: 1/4  

Loading...

Members

• Total Members: 214688
• Latest: Stepanc812

Stats

• Total Posts: 110526
• Total Topics: 19136
• Online Today: 342
• Online Ever: 826
• (January 22, 2020, 12:09:49 AM)

Users Online

• Users: 0
• Guests: 138
• Total: 138