In 1978 eminent Chinese American physicist, Nobel Laureate, Professor Tsung-Dao Lee from Columbia University, recommended to Chinese government to launch a gifted youth program at University of Science and Technology of China, which is China’s equivalent of MIT. 21 child prodigies were recruited from all over China with superior IQ test and stringent subject test scores. These children aged between 11 and 13, some of them didn’t even start middle school. As a new experiment in China’s higher education, the program aimed to produce China’s own Nobel prize winning scientists and gained incredible fame and prestige. The young prodigies from the program’s first few classes became household names. Many colleges followed and launched similar programs. To present the original program has more then 2000 graduates, it did not produce more Nobel Laureate like Professor Lee as expected, instead such program lost its popularity in China. Most of them shut down and the couple that remained significantly changed their admission standards, there was no longer IQ test and students’ age is typically 15. The reason being the young prodigies who skipped high school did not demonstrate higher achievement than their peers who remained in regular educational path, instead the prodigies encountered significant psychological and social skill challenges, and some couldn’t manage daily life as adults. Currently tracking is only implemented in the last 2 years of high school in China.
In comparison tracking is common practice in most elementary schools in the United States. Children as young as kindergarten are grouped based on academic abilities. Tracking is done through gifted and talented programs or placing students in above grade level, grade level and below grade level tracks with corresponding curriculum and instructions. As demonstrated by the Chinese program, the achievement advantage for the students placed at the top is not nearly as significant as perceived whereas the majority of students who are placed in middle or low tracks suffer achievement loss due to lower motivation and confidence. A better practice would be in lower grades limit or prohibit tracking; children of different achievement levels remain in same classes and advocate partnership among the ones with high and low academic performances. The benefit of such partnership is not unilateral. The lower performance students are encouraged by peer examples and the higher performance students learn to be empathetic and compassionate. To attain policy change on tracking at school district level, parents and students’ involvement will be crucial, so go to your local school district’s board meetings, present the board members with data and individual students’ experience will make a big difference.
Read More:
The History and Achievements of the School of the Gifted Young