> I'd be interested in the reaction of others in the group to
>
> >Vygotsky was critiquing the
> >attitude of looking at those children as having moral problems. He
> >argued instead that these were the children who were gifted and would be our
> >future leaders.
in the nearly thirty years i've spent in elementary teaching, this
argument has been the one most used to argue for the funding of gifted
education - that gifted students would in time be our future leaders.
yet in follow-up studies, most gifted students demonstrated social
success by incrementally adding to their professional fields (doctors,
lawyers, professors). hardly any demonstrated leadership or intellectual
leaps within their fields.
could this be because _giftedness_ is a collage of particular
attributes favored by the culture at that time? - it has certainly been
a reflection of social demographics.
phillip
phillip white pwhite who-is-at carbon.cudenver.edu
/////////////////////////////////\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
A relation of surveillance, defined and regulated,
is inscribed at the heart of the practice of teaching, not
as an additional or adjacent part, but as a mechanism that
is inherent to it and which increases its efficiency.
Michel Foucault / Discipline & Punish
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\///////////////////////////////////////