Groups of children from 10 to 14 entered the experimental class of extraordinary education in Beijing No.8 Middle School from 1 September, 9851,and it took them four years to complete the eight-year curriculum from the fifth grade of primary school to the third grade of high school. Without any preferential treatment, I participated in the national unified college entrance examination. Results These 13-and 14-year-old children 100% were admitted to universities, most of them went to key universities such as Peking University and Tsinghua, and even had 16 doctors. From this point of view, the "child prodigy education" in Beijing No.8 Middle School seems to have made remarkable achievements and brilliant achievements.
I have read such a story. A three-year-old girl in Nevada told her mother that she knew the letter O on the gift box, which was taught by a kindergarten teacher. The mother took the kindergarten to court on the grounds that it deprived her children of their imagination. Because in the past, children could describe O as apples, the sun, football, eggs and other round things. This ability has been lost since they knew 26 letters. The court ruled in favor of the mother. Undoubtedly, if this happened in China, the parents' lawsuit would lose, and many parents in China would stand on the side of kindergartens.
We have a social environment that values prodigies and likes to create prodigies. "Child prodigy education" has been in the ascendant for decades. Although "child prodigy education" has not yet formed a scale and lacks certain "educational standards", in short, it is to increase the amount of learning, speed up learning, and let a few talented children become talents and succeed as soon as possible. This may not be wrong. However, the question is:/kloc-What is the essential difference between a 0/6-year-old doctor and a 26-year-old doctor except the age difference?
The formal eight-year education course ends in four years. Even though educators claim that the education method is "flexible" and "scientific", as students themselves, they obviously have to pay more efforts and time than their peers, even the so-called "prodigies". People only have one childhood. As "prodigies", they have lost their innocence. It cannot be said that extraordinary and long education is an obliteration of children's nature. At the expense of squeezing children's long-term potential, children's imagination and creativity are bound, and only temporary glory is obtained. In recent years, we have trained many "16-year-old doctors", but how many can really "make it"?
Few children are interested in the title of "child prodigy", but parents and educators are interested in the essence of "child prodigy education", which is the product of parents' will and educational will. Parents want their children to become famous as soon as possible, and schools need "prodigies" to prove their educational achievements. The two hit it off and rushed into it. The utilitarian mentality encourages short-sighted education, and "child prodigy education" is a kind of "carrier" and "tool" rather than "education".
Whose "prodigy" and whose "education" is actually a question worth thinking about for a long time.