Saturday, October 31, 2015


A father introduces his son to Froebel's gifts.








  1. Well said, Doug. I understand that the word “education” means “to draw out”—which is not at all what we conventionally mean by the word; we seem to think it means the very opposite — to fill kids up with data (schools’ success being supposedly measurable with testing). In this light, the presence of “gifted and talented” programs represents, not a virtue of schools that institute them, but a failure of schools to recognize, as you say, the innate gifts in every individual, and educators’ mission to discover and cultivate each child’s special talents.

    Question is, why don’t we work in the original understanding of the word “educate” and its ideal?

  2. I certainly share an interest in your question. Why don't we? I think the answer may be that schools are at least partly intended to manage children so that their parents can be employed at low wage jobs while knowing that their kids are safely off the streets. If we were interested in drawing out the child's innate capacities, we would reduce the number of children in a classroom, and give the teachers time and opportunity to discover what the child's interests and talents are, and command that they do so!

    A friend of mine, a nationally known educator, was called to school for a conference over a special concern with his son. After the teachers, counselor and principal got finished describing the son's poor performance, my friend asked if they knew of the boy's interest in the saxophone. They did not. The son, it turned out, was performing at a professional level with adult jazz groups in the evenings after school. But if teachers do not even know their students or their interests, how can they possibly teach and expect meaningful results?