Did You Want to be The Pretender, Too?

It is clear that I was NOT a child prodigy, much less a genius.  However, that didn't stop me from pondering about the whole topic in my 20's when cool shows like Doogie Howser and The Pretender were on the air.  What child didn't want to be a practicing doctor at age 14 (or pretending to be!) and whose parents wouldn't love to brag about their one-of-a-kind kid with super human intellect?  SIDEBAR: Who knew Neil Patrick Harris' career would have continued – most "child stars" just can't make the jump (oh yeah... he only plays childish characters... makes sense now!).  While these two TV shows simply just used the concept of a child prodigy as the backdrop to their stories, they only casually brought home that fact that the culture around a child can make a HUGE difference in their intellectual capacity, not to mention their ability to empathize with, and offer respect to, others.

In Doogie's situation, his genius was identified at an early age and he was presented with immersion opportunities.  As for young Jarod (yes, a sad story indeed), he was presented with an even more strenuous "field of study" with a heavy focus on "real life application".  SIDEBAR #2: If you have never watched The Pretender, give it a try.  Beyond their innate intellectual abilities, the boys both benefited from another consistent theme in their early years; an intense set of expectations and a dedicated educational environment to learn in.  Doogie's was surely more mainstream and nobody is going to fault Jarod's resentment to The Centre for all of their "intensity and dedication", but it is clear that the immersive nature of their educational experience growing up definitely shaped their intellect, knowledge, cognitive skills, and their self-confidence.

I'm surely not suggesting ever kid in the world could (or should!!) become a doctor at age 14 like Doogie.  I'm also not recommending that rouge paramilitary analytical & operational organizations should start snatching up kids to grow them into their next generation of analysts & operators!!  What I am pondering on (not necessarily suggesting) is what would the average child and young adult be like if we as a country were willing to provide this level of focus and immersion to them.  Plenty of studies talk about the brain formation benefits of simple stimulation such as hearing music, listening to speaking (in a variety of languages) and actively playing with other children and presenting them with interactive toys.  On the flip side, there have been plenty of studies that show what happens to children without such stimulation – one doesn't have to look much further than video from orphanages from worn-torn and/or extreme poverty regions of the world to see that almost lifeless stare in the eyes of those children.

What if we did (tactfully) "bombard" our next generation with a commitment to help them reach their fullest intellectual potential from a very early age?  What if we made sure that this early learning was also very fun as we have to "let kids be kids", but we also know from personal experiences we learn so much more when we are truly interested and find it enjoyable?  What if the education expectations where dramatically higher than they are today?  What if we made this education year round so that it felt like "what we do" instead of having these interesting grade levels with large breaks in the middle that force us to spend tons of time relearning & reviewing at the start of the next school year?  If we approached "education" as a much more tightly coupled element of "growing up" to the point it was natural to, and even desired by, our children?  Might our lofty expectations be reached?  Could we have the next generation of intelligence that as a whole far surpassed any other generation?

Hmm...  still pondering... 

I should quickly say that I obviously don't have all the answers and I'm not even suggesting a course of action.  I'm simply wondering if others believe like I do that a good percentage of children truly could accomplish much more than they do today (and yes, I'm not even suggesting that our children are necessarily stupid or can't continue to be successful in the "system" we have today)?  Thoughts?

Now, I'm just a simple caveman lawyer, but what I do know is... 

• First, and foremost, American is surely not willing to apply the focus this would require of them as parents (and yes, taxpayers) as we are all already stretched thin with our American way of life (again, a "way of life" this Army veteran and proud American is extremely thankful for!!) and we as a society surely are not willing to fund such an endeavor.  SIDEBAR #3: Check out I Should Have Been a Teacher; well, if I started in Georgia!! for some of my ramblings on teacher pay.  We are talking about a gigantic shift in cultural priorities (and funding) here that I can't imagine America as a whole would get fired up about.  This would be like the "space race" times 100 in its effort and need for focus.
• Second, as I alluded to earlier, many folks would simply be freaked out by a model where we put so much focus on our children in an educational setting.  Again, we don't need to isolate kids like The Centre did to poor Jarod, but this would be a model where there are more results-driven adults interacting directly with our children and the natural behavior for a parent is to be worried about something like this until they understood the goals & strategies and agreed with them.
• Finally, it is clearly not realistic to assume that every kid could be a doctor at age 14.  In fact, very, very, very few of them would ever be "Doogies", but that doesn't mean many more than those numbers could successful meet much higher expectations and goals if they were placed on them and then provided a wealth of assistance and guidance.

If I was asked to chime-in, even with half-baked plan, I'd suggest we consider a model where we introduced a richer learning/playing environment when are kids are very young.  Maybe we call it "brainy day care" where we are ensuring all kids get a chance to have a focused environment (maybe only a couple of hours a day) where we can guarantee they have the level of stimulation that they all need.  As the years go on, we start looking for kids who show a stronger tendency to understand at an advanced level.  We continue this immerse, enrich, identify, and enhance model all the way through our educational process.  Sadly, this is a model we seem to have lost (maybe it was really never there?).  As a parent of a child that just started college and one that is now in high school, I can report that my experience is that public schools bundle kids into two categories, "lowest-common denominator" and "already smart and motivated", and leverage strategies catering to only these generalizations.  If you happen to have a kid is somewhere "in the middle" then you are encouraged to help your kid find his place in one of these two buckets.  Somehow I imagining that a high percentage of kids are "in the middle"...

I'm betting some folks are going to start worrying that I'm suggesting an elitist model here.  I'm not, I'm suggesting a realistic model here.  Like it or not, we really already do this in sports with our kids.  Yes, there are the "participatory" leagues were kids learn a new sport and associated skills where "just trying" is truly the goal.  Then there is the "select" world where kids and/or their parents see a career as a professional, or at least a way to gain a solid scholarship, as their ultimate goal.  The leagues continue to get harder and harder and more and more kids fall out of them.  This system creates the model that allows the the very best performers to make it to the very top.  There are also many levels along the way that even if one plateaus at still offer a level of success to be grateful for and proud of.  I'd be OK if we treated school education like that; especially if we did it in a way that focuses on the children, accepts their individuality and interests, and encourages them to be humble in their own abilities and aware that being smart doesn't make them better.  Tall order to fill for sure!!

Of course, just like you, I can see some bad movie plots already forming, so again, remember my real question in this posting is if folks believe that the majority of our population has reached its fullest potential or not?  And if not, is that a bad thing?  And if so, what might we consider doing about it going forward?  Yes, it is like one of those crazy topics Linda Richman would offer up on Coffee Talk when she got verklempt; "Child education success in America is neither childish nor educational nor successful nor American.  Discuss."