This blog post is long overdue - I spoke at a meeting of the National Math Panel in Palo Alto several weeks ago. I was part of the public speaking session. There were 10 such speakers. A couple were there because of a politcial battle over the CA state standards. Several were there to advertise their services or products. A few were there as part of local issues or national organizations (read: unions). I was there to tell them not to overlook the smart kids.

I made one main tactical error: I euphemistically occasionally used the phrase 'eager students' instead of embracing the fact (as I did in much of the speech) that I'm advocating for the smart kids. I have a little evidence that my speech didn't fall on deaf ears. The panel only asked questions of the two people in the big political battle, and of me. The first one really threw me. The questioner asked me how we tell which students are eager or not. I answered that teachers can tell. She said that she's been a teacher for some number of years, and she couldn't tell. Hurm. She clearly either didn't understand what I was driving at, or she just didn't believe in dealing with the issues that strong students present. (And she was extremely rude, shaking her head and typing on her computer while I was answering...)

I do at least take her point that some students are very interested and strong without their teachers knowing. But that's a failure of their teacher. She asked if I thought that this interest was innate. I could have handled that question a little better. The answer, I think, is that interest in learning is innate in most kids, and environment takes it away from most of them. For math, I think the problem is that so few elementary school teachers like or understand math. For someone who really likes math, teaching elementary school seems like a much worse option than middle or high school.

But . . . No more euphemisms for me, I think. When I go to advocate for the smart students, I think I have to start calling them that. Otherwise, it's too easy for people to believe they don't exist.

Anyway, the other questioners were more friendly, and the last was Vern Williams, who didn't ask a question, but rather gave public props to our work at AoPS. One other questioner was the Vice-Chair, Camilla Benbow, who I later learned was part of SET/CTY, studied under Julian Stanley, etc. Between her and Vern, there's some hope that the cause of strong math students won't be overlooked. She asked about what to do for strong students. She asked whether enrichment and acceleration are the same. I think in the vocabulary the gifted community uses, they may be. In practice, as those who have read my writing know well, I think they are very different. In the next few weeks, I'll probably write her and explain more at length, both because the topic is interesting, and because she is in a position to do something about it.

Before going, I feared the trip would probably be a waste of time, but I think now that it might not have been. I got to see Vern again, which is nice, and he tells me that my words probably had more effect than I imagine. That's good. But he also told me that the environment in schools for gifted students is worse than I imagine, which is probably true, and depressing.