[HPforGrownups] Re: Sadism or not ? McGonagall and her punishments

[Shaun Hately]

No: HPFGUIDX 186781

a_svirn:
> So would I. No one said anything about Harry's being better off
> without Quidditch. We were discussing McGonagall's less than
> sterling record where rule enforcement is concerned.

Shaun:

That may well be what you are discussing. It's not quite what I'm 
discussing, although it's not that far off either.

My point is more looking at whether or not Professor McGonagall is a fair 
and just teacher. That's not quite the same thing as whether or not she 
perfectly adheres to the rules at all times. It is very hard, if not 
impossible, to write school rules that apply equitably in 100% of cases. 
You're doing very well if you can come up with rules that meet that criteria 
in even 99% of cases. To be fair, there needs to be some degree of 
flexibility.

An important factor in my view in deciding whether or not to bend a rule 
(and, sometimes, even if necessary to break it) is whether or not doing so 
is in the best interests of the child.

Professor McGonagall's decision in this case is in Harry's best interest. I 
don't think that's the first thing she thought of but it is an important 
point in deciding whether or not what she did is fair and acceptable. If it 
wasn't in Harry's best interest, it could not be defended - or at least I 
wouldn't do it.

> a_svirn:
> It does have *some* similar characteristics. And some other 
> characteristics
> that British schools don't have. However, "possibility", and even 
> "likelihood"
> is a waaay too long way from "proof".

Shaun:

Please list the significant characteristics, not specifically connected to 
Hogwarts being a 'magical' school, that you believe it doesn't share with 
British schools.

It's not just that Hogwarts shares *some* characteristics with Muggle 
schools in Britain. It shares *most* characteristics with Muggle schools in 
Britain, except in cases where it's magical nature forces there to be an 
exception.

JKR deliberately chose the British boarding school model for Hogwarts for a 
reason - she's said so in interviews. She chose that model (which personally 
she dislikes) because it had the characteristics she needed to make her 
story work. This is why Hogwarts fits the model so well - it's a deliberate 
choice on the author's part. She didn't choose to create Hogwarts are a 
completely unique school. She took a model that she knew would work for her 
story and then changed the bits she needed to change.

Now, as I've said, the hair issues I am talking about here are not confined 
to boarding schools. They are a common feature of British schools in 
general. Recognisable and understandable by her intended audience. People 
who are arguing for Professor McGonagall's actions in the case of Parvarti's 
hairclip not being a matter of a teacher enforcing a school rule, are, in my 
view, asking us to accept that JKR would have written that passage into the 
book, somehow assuming that without any prompting of any sort, that the 
intended audience of the book would assume something that is exactly the 
opposite of their common experience. That doesn't make a whole lot of sense 
to me. I can understand why somebody coming from a different type of 
background who isn't aware of this being a common characteristic of British 
schools, and especially if they feel such a characteristic doesn't make a 
whole lot of sense, interpreting it differently, but I don't think that 
interpretation stands up particularly well - any more than speculation from 
years past that JKR had obviously 'created' the word 'prefect' and chosen it 
because it was so close to 'perfect'.

a_svirn:
> I am sure any child would appreciate the distinction.

Shaun:

I did. So did all my friends. So do my students. Even kids as young as six 
or seven understand the difference between talking about a person and 
talking about a behaviour - it's taught to them in anti-bullying programs 
("You're not allowed to say you don't like David, you are allowed to say you 
don't like David's swearing.")

a_svirn:
> Huh. It wasn't an "assertion" of anything, Shaun. It amazes me that you
> could possibly take a phrase like "what is it, North Korea?" as a
> definitive statement about all boarding schools in the Free World.


Shaun:

That wasn't the whole phrase.

"Approved sort of hair clasp?! What is it, North Korea? I don't believe even 
Umbridge could be bothered to regulate hair clasps."

To me, the whole phrase does look pretty definitive. You've also suggested 
that only the worst type of teacher we've seen (that's my opinion, anyway)is 
the only type who'd do it. Nowhere near true.

But if you didn't mean it to be that definitive, I'll take your word for 
it - you're in a better position to know what you meant than me. Obviously I 
misinterpreted you on that point. I apologise.

a_svirn:
> Talk about generalisations. I accept that most British
> schools have uniforms, some of them regulate hairstyles,
> and sometimes those regulations include things like hairpins
> or hairclasps. How widespread are those hairclip regulations
> is another matter. I doubt there is a survey on hairpins as
> part of uniforms, but I'd be willing to bet that if we were
> to go to edubase or some other public database and sample randomly
> say, ten schools out of every county there wouldn't be many
> schools out there with strict hairpins regulations.

Shaun:

I'd actually be surprised if it hasn't been studied, speaking as somebody 
who does do educational research on occasion. School uniform regulations 
come in for quite a lot of statistical analysis. But I'm not immediately 
aware of any studies. My guess, though, is if a survey of the type you 
described was undertaken, you'd probably find at least fifty percent of 
British schools with some degree of regulation on what female students can 
put in their hair.

a_svirn:
> My reference to North Korea that you chose to interpret
> literally was about Hogwarts in general and its dress-code
> in particular not being as totalitarian as you seem to suggest.
> As for real life British boarding schools, it is a well known
> fact that people who attended them sometimes compared them
> with totalitarian states. Take George Orwell, for instance.
> Or Esmond Rommilly. Hogwarts, however, does not seem nearly
> as bad as Orwell's St. Cyprian's, or Rommilly's Wellington.


Shaun:

True - but even if some characteristics of some boarding schools have been 
described as totalitarian (and with justification in my view, at times), the 
characteristic I've been talking about here is not one that is only 
regulated in totalitarian schools, nor for that matter only in boarding 
schools.

a_svirn:
> I do not "assume" that "the rule could not exist", I simply
> state that there is no evidence of its existence in the books.
> There is, on the other hand an ample body of evidence that
> Hogwarts students indulge in all kinds of hairstyles that
> would not pass the muster of some of the real life British
> schools.

Shaun:

As I have said a number of times now, despite having gone through the books 
with a fine tooth comb looking at every single reference to hair contained 
within them, I haven't seen a single example of a hairstyle that is not one 
that I would expect to be permitted in most real life British schools with 
the *possible* exception of dreadlocks. You keep claiming there is evidence 
of this in the books - once again, I'd ask you to quote this evidence.


a_svirn:
> Moreover, we have in fact the evidence that Hogwarts uniform
> requirements do not include hair regulations. In the letter
> Harry receives in his first year (and that's a general sort
> of letter that every student receives regardless of gender,
> presumably) the uniform requirements outlined as follows:

Shaun:

I'm aware of the list. I'm also aware of similar lists that exist for real 
world schools, and such lists do not normally contain a list of all the 
schools rules relating to uniform and appearance. I have seen exceptions to 
that, but in general, I would not expect to find such information contained 
in a list of what students to buy in regards to uniform, and so the fact 
that Hogwarts list doesn't do that, doesn't in any way suggest that such 
rules don't exist.

The uniform list for my old school can be seen at:

http://tinyurl.com/p4ukj2

Nowhere in that list is there a list of rules concerning appearance - 
because that's not something that needs to be sent home with a list of 
things you need to buy for school, which is what the list Hogwarts sends is.

> a_svirn:
> It's dealing with confidence issues to which McGonagall is referring here.

Shaun:

Yes, it is, I would hope - but the issue with the passwords is a memory 
issue.

a_svirn:
> I don't see how you can convincingly claim that memorising lots of spells,
> most of them in another language even, does not involve auditory memory.
> Not that Neville's memory problems are exclusively auditory.

Shaun:

Neville's memory problems do seem to me to be almost exclusively if not 
exclusively auditory memory problems. I don't see signs of him having a poor 
visual or kinaesthetic memory.

But you are quite correct - memorising the names of spells is something that 
heavily involves auditory memory.

The thing is though, Professor McGonagall's classes don't seem involve 
memorising a lot of spells. I don't believe we ever learn the name of a 
spell in a Transfiguration class. When Moody/Crouch transfgures Draco into a 
ferret, he doesn't say a spell - nor does Professor McGonagall say one when 
she turns him back. Not all magic seems to require the use of spells with 
complicated names. Transfiguration is a lot more about theory. Professor 
McGonagall gets the students to copy down large amounts of notes in her 
classes - that for most kids with auditory memory issues is a strategy that 
works for them because it engages visual and kinaesthetic memory. Snapes' 
classes on the other hand involve following complicated lists of 
instructions he gives them where order is critical - a disaster for a child 
with auditory processing issues.

a_svirn:
> Well, Mrs. Longbottom had informed McGonagall of her concerns. She
> said presumably that it is not *safe* to trust Neville's memory,
> otherwise she would have given him the form as other parents or
> guardians did. McGonagall chose to ignore it, and ended up
> compromising her students' safety.

Shaun:

If I, as a teacher, am given a form by a parent and the parent says they are 
giving it to me because they don't trust the child to do it, I wouldn't 
immediately think of memory issues. I'd think of issues of carelessness, 
which are quite different.

a_svirn:
> Your example does not illustrate the argument, because your being behind
> in your marking has nothing to do with that student's not doing his or her
> homework. Whereas McGonagall's arrangement had a very direct impact on
> the Neville's password fiasco.

Shaun:

It's your argument that McGonagall is hypocritical in punishing Neville. 
That's the argument I'm addressing.

a_svirn:
> And I am arguing that it is exactly the situation, because
> Neville *was* substantially disadvantaged by Sir Cadogan's passwords.

Shaun:

He was not substantially disadvantaged in the classroom which is what the 
law you are talking about refers to.

a_svirn:
> Barely. And Neville is constantly shown in the books as a
> walking disaster. If  his problems weren't obvious to her, it
> is because she chose to interpret them as laziness or
> carelessness. Which is not very well done of her.

Shaun:

Show us a situation where Neville displays his characteristics as a 'walking 
disaster' in front of Professor McGonagall. I can't recall any but I haven't 
looked for these but they may exist. A teacher can only be held responsible 
for knowing about problems they saw or they were told about. If there is 
evidence that Professor McGonagall saw Neville's problems, then fine - I 
can't think of any, but such could exist.

> a_svirn:
> But your offered justification for bending the rule in question
> was that Harry was safe.


Shaun:

Not, it wasn't.

I am saying that that is probably the rationale behind the rule (in my 
opinion) and therefore it that rationale does not hold, there's no reason 
not to bend the rule. It's not the justification for bending it - that's 
quite different. It's clear that that is so he can play Quidditch for the 
good of Gryffindor. But you shouldn't bend a rule unless you can get around 
it's rationale.

>> Shaun:
>>
>> We're not talking about a criminal case when it comes to Parvarti, 
>> though.
>> We're talking about a case of school discipline - which does not require 
>> a
>> presumption of innocence in law.
>
> a_svirn:
> You were the one who brought it.

Shaun:

Yes - because in the case of the accusations against Professor McGonagall, 
they are serious enough that I believe that's the acceptable standard. The 
accusation against Parvarti is not that serious.

It's much more serious to accuse a teacher of acting outside their authority 
than to accuse a student of breaking a rule about a hairpin.

> a_svirn:
> What allegations? That she is being petty? I don't think it is a matter 
> for lawyers either.

Shaun:

No, not that she is being petty. But that she is acting outside of her 
authority. It's not petty to enforce a school rule in a situation where it 
would normally be enforced. So if you think it's petty, it suggests to me 
you believe she is acting outside that type of authority - and yes, that is 
a serious accusation.

Magpie:
> This isn't about children not understanding that sometimes
> rules should be bent in order to make things fair. This is
> about this particular situation *not* being a case of rules
> "bent" to make anything fair and any kid could see that.
> The kids have to deal with that since they have no say in
> the situation, but I don't think they'd also agree to call
> it that as well.

Shaun:

I don't see why not.

What is it about this situation that is inherently unfair? An exceptionally 
good flyer is being given a chance to play Quidditch.

If we had a case where another first-year student had shown equal potential 
and had been denied that chance, then, yes, the kids would undoubtedly find 
it unfair.

But we've no reason to suppose that's not the case.

Magpie:
> Substitute situations that are about being fair or general
> ideas like "zero tolerance" are not relevant. Harry's being
> given a broom by the school has nothing to do with a zero
> tolerance policy on anything. I'm not sure why you listed
> all these examples of school policies being enforced in a
> ridiculous way (girl suspended for having a nail file) as
> if their being unfair makes Harry's situation fair.


Shaun:

The reason I mentioned them is quite simple. Because they illustrate what 
happens in schools if we decide that being fair means treating every case as 
if it's exactly the same without considering individual differences in those 
cases. It doesn't lead to things being fairer. It leads to profound 
unfairness. You get fairness when there is flexibility in how rules are 
enforced.

I can see how somebody could reasonably argue that this particular case is 
not one that leads to a fair result. I don't agree, but I can see why - 
there's always room in particular cases for disagreement on where the line 
between fair and unfair lies. My point is though that being flexible is not 
always a bad thing. Being inflexible is.

Magpie:
> This
> situation is more like if the school has a zero tolerance
> on bringing weapons to school, but when Harry gets caught
> shooting at cans and it turns out he's a good shot his
> teacher buys him a top of the line gun for himself hoping
> he'll take out somebody she doesn't like. Because that's
> only fair?

Shaun:

Personally, I'd have punished Harry for (and Draco too) for flying without 
permission. But that decision really should be in the hands of Madam Hooch, 
not Professor McGonagall in my view. If there's any unfairness in this case 
that I can see, it's in that both of them escaped punishment. But I'd still 
have given Harry the chance to play Quidditch.

Magpie:
> There are no other cases that we know of that are identical to Harry's
> since Harry's special treament is referred to a lot. Lots of kids have
> the potential to play internationally someday. According to JKR Ginny
> Weasley does play professionally and the rule isn't waived for her.
> Nor is Harry's alleged professional potential ever shown to be a
> motivation for anybody.

Shaun:

Harry doesn't just have potential. He shows it. That means the school is 
aware of it. You can't blame a teacher for not nurturing unusual potential 
they don't know about. But if they become aware of it, things change.

Magpie:
> Yeah, I noticed Harry never loses anything, really, as long
> as he's conscious. But canonically, McGonagall doesn't really
> care one way or the other how Harry nurtures his brilliant
> talent. She just wants a Seeker for Gryffindor--and she wants
> him playing on the best broom. Once she gets that, whether
> Harry reaches his full potential as a professional player
> is no concern of hers.

Shaun:

Isn't it? It's Professor McGonagall's job to give Harry career advice in 
fifth year. He doesn't tell her he wasnts to be a professional Quidditch 
player. He tells her he wants to be an Auror. So she tells him what he needs 
to do. In fact:

"'Potter,' she said in ringing tones, 'I will assist you to become an Auror 
if it's the last thing I do! If I have to coach you nightly I will make sure 
you receive the required results!'"

Now, admittedly, a lot of that is just her taking umbrage at Umbridge. But 
the fact remains, when Harry discusses his future plans, she advises him on 
the ones he tells her about. I assume she'd do that whatever he had come up 
with.

Magpie:
> McGonagall does not let Harry break the rule because he's so good his
> talent must be nurtured and she doesn't buy him a top of the line broom
> because she's acting as his parent. She lets him play and buys him the
> broom so that her team can have a Seeker riding on the best broom.
> This is the reason given in canon. There is no evidence of McGonagall
> or anyone else at the school feeling a personal responsibility to
> nurture Harry's personal gifts as a flier. Nor is there any examples
> of McGonagall acting as a parent in this kind of elaborately generous way.
> Or really any way. She's not acting as a parent here, she's acting as
> the house mistress and so "owner" of the Gryffindor team. Thank
> goodness she isn't claiming to be acting on a sacred trust to look
> after Harry as a war orphan by buying him the broom and letting him
> play--the blatant benefits to herself and notable lack of motherly
> feelings elsewhere would suggest some cynicism.

Shaun:

A teacher in a position of being in loco parentis is *always* acting as a 
parent. That's what the term means.

And you're assuming that Professor McGonagall doesn't have these 
motivations. As a teacher, I'd assume she does. She knew and taught his 
parents. She was there watching over the place he was going to be taken, the 
day his parents died - years before she ever became his teacher or his Head 
of House. Professor McGonagall is not a demonstrative mother-type figure 
like Molly Weasley - but, yeah, I think she does feel a particular 
responsibility for Harry.

Mapie:
> So since legitimate scholarship programs exist a teacher
> getting the "no first years may have their own brooms at
> school" and buying him a top of the line model must be
> totally like a scholarship program? I don't think so.
> Any example of favoritism, bias, prejudice or unequal
> dealings with students could be justified that way.

Shaun:

I didn't claim that these things were "Totally like a scholarship program." 
I just pointed out that doing something that is good for the school, or good 
for the house, can also be intended to be good for the child.

And, yes, a lot of favouritism, bias, prejudice, or unequal dealings with 
students could be justified in the way I'm describing. It doesn't mean that 
that is what's behind them.

As for buying Harry a broom, I recently bought one my students a laptop 
computer. As it happens, he's not one of my favourite students. Not even 
close. What he is is a student who can benefit from having a computer in a 
way none of my other students could and who had nobody else who'd ever be 
willing to buy him one. I've also bought a pair of glasses for a student in 
the last year or so.

Magpie:
> No, he isn't. The fact the professional players come from
> Hogwarts does not mean they are being trained to be
> professionals at Hogwarts. They're not being trained at
> all. They don't even have Quidditch coaches.

Shaun:

No, because they coach themselves - but Quidditch is a major part of the 
life of the school, and, that's the opportunity that gives them the chance 
to be professionals in the future. It is the school providing that.

Magpie:
> I said when he was at the same age. Meaning when Harry is
> 17 there is no indication that he's reached Viktor's level.
> Even if he wasn't saving the world he wouldn't be playing
> International Quidditch. He recognizes when he sees the
> professionals that they play at a much higher level than
> his team does at Hogwarts. Of course he could still become
> a professional player, just as Ginny and Oliver do. They'd
> just have to start seriously training after they left that
> school.

Shaun:

No, Harry doesn't show the same potential at 17 as Viktor - but considering 
Harry only got to play in less than half the matches he normally should have 
while he was at Hogwarts, that doesn't really tell us much (Harry plays in 
nine matches while at school. In a normal six year (Year Two - Year Seven) 
Quidditch career, a student could expect to play in 18 matches - Harry, 
potentially could have played in 21 with a seven year career. Oliver Wood 
played an estimated 14 matches, Angelina plays 13, the Weasley twins play 
11. Harry has a rather abbreviated career what with the competition being 
cancelled early in Chamber of Secrets, no competition at all in Goblet of 
Fire, and his suspension in Order of the Phoenix. There's also the added 
factor that for the last part of his school career, he's aware he's got a 
destiny outside Quidditch that is probably going to kill him.

Alla:
> This example was however brought up to counter your
> argument about Professor McGonagall never doing
> something against the rules, no?

Shaun:

I don't think so, because I haven't made that argument. I've argued that I 
can't remember her ever breaking a rule which is different.

Alla:
> Thus to me this shows that if she would be scolding
> Parvati for the rule that does not exist, that will
> not be the first time for her going against the rules.

Shaun:

There's a very fundamental difference, in my view, between getting a student 
an exemption from a rule from the Headmaster - which was what was done in 
Harry's case - and acting without authority of a school rule behind you - 
which is what is alleged in Parvarti's.Alla:


Alla:
> OOOO, this is what I call stellar canon evidence.
> And in fact I would say that if Hogwarts regulates
> their students' hair in a any way, shape or form,
> to me it would make a perfect sense to mention it
> here for the exact reason you described. I would
> think that it would have a great comic effect for
> Harry to worry about how he will deal with his hair
> while in school, to show him being extra nervous
> or something. However she mentions nothing of the
> sort. So yeah, this is a forbidden " me too" part
> of the post.

Shaun:

As I said above, this type of document isn't one where I would expect rules 
on hair to be mentioned. Similar documents don't normally serve that purpose 
in real world schools, so I can't see any reason to see why they at 
Hogwarts, and so the fact it doesn't, doesn't seem like evidence of much at 
all to me.

Sheryl and Ceridwyn have both made many of the points on this, I would make, 
and my messages get long enough anyway, so I'll leave that point for now.

a_svirn:
> I'd say it's a pretty inclusive list. What's showering
> has to do with uniforms? You don't need include shampoo
> and soap into the list of uniform requirements, it's absurd.
> But if you are getting your kid ready for a boarding school
> with specific (and very strict) hair regulations you need
> to know what they are. If you son sport dreadlocks and the
> school requires all boys to have a neat short haircut you'd
> have to take him to the barbers. If the school requires
> girls' bands, Alice bands and hairclips to be of specific
> colour you'd need to buy all those items, wouldn't you? Or
> some of them.

Shaun:

It's information you'd need to give parents only if it's information you 
didn't think they'd already know. When I started at my new school when I was 
13, going from a very ordinary school with very lax rules to a very 
prestigious and strict one, my new school didn't feel the need to tell my 
parents about all the things that would be different, because they knew any 
normally informed person in our society would understand things like what 
haircuts were acceptable etc. In the case of Hogwarts, where the parents of 
most non-Muggleborn students went to Hogwarts, it could easily assume 
parents know about Hogwarts rules, and we're told that muggleborn students 
have somebody who comes to tell them the things they need to know, there's 
no need to rely on books.

But, yes, if Hogwarts did require specific items like hairbands of a 
particular colour, say, that I would expect to be in the uniform list. But 
only if there's are actually specific items that need to be purchased - not 
just because some items are banned. It's not the same thing.

> a_svirn:
> What rules? That the Forbidden Forest and a certain corridor
> are forbidden? You don't include thing like that into a list
> of uniform requirement either. As for dungbombs and other
> Zonko products, not only it has nothing to do with uniforms,
> parents only need to have some rudimentary common sense to
> know that things like dungbombs aren't something you should
> equip your kid with.

Shaun:

Yes, and British parents with rudimentary commonsense also know that you 
don't send your child to school with weird hairstyles unless you absolutely 
know the school doesn't mind - and so wouldn't need to be told such things 
aren't allowed either.

Hogwarts seems to have a lot of rules that are written down - in Order of 
the Phoenix, we see Hermione unable to stop Friend and George from testing 
their products on themselves, because she's looked and she can't find a rule 
against it - that means there are written rules. Most of which parents 
aren't told about in any letter from Hogwarts.

Again, this is in line with real school practice. My school had rules on 
hair - we did get given copies of them (and copies of a lot of other rules) 
but we were given them after we started the school year, once we were at 
school. The school's view was that our parents didn't need to know them - 
they weren't the ones being expected to follow them. We were, so we had to 
know them.

Sheryll again:
>
> It's not at all an inclusive list. I see no mention of
> undergarments (which I'll agree wouldn't be regulated) or
> shoes, which I think would have *some* guidelines. I think
> it's safe to assume they don't go barefoot, so they are
> required to bring shoes. I also think it's safe to assume
> that the guidelines for everyday footwear don't include
> stiletto heels, which would be highly improper for classes
> like Herbology or Care of Magical Creatures. What is
> provided with the Hogwarts letter is a list of items the
> students would likely need to *purchase*, things they
> probably don't already have at home. Even Draco, coming
> from a well-to-do family, is seen going to Madame Malkin's
> to buy the necessary robes.

Shaun:

Yes, that's how I see it - it's a uniform list and a book list. Again, 
things, real schools have. Not a list of rules.

Just for the record, though, historically quite a large number of schools 
*did* regulate underwear (particularly girls schools). There are some that 
still do, but that is unusual - and in my view, would be a sign of a school 
that has gone totalitarian! It is also a very unusual requirement - not one 
I would assume applies at Hogwarts. That's the point - I wouldn't argue for 
an assumption an unusual requirement that exists in a few schools exists at 
Hogwarts. But a common requirement that exists in a lot of schools *and* 
which explains a particular teacher's behaviour - that's another matter.

Sheryll again:
> So JKR didn't draft a student handbook for us to read. I
> think it's safe to say something of the sort exists, either
> written to be handed to the students on arrival or verbally
> provided by prefects.

Shaun:

I'm sure there are written rules - and quite a lot of them. Hermione seems 
to consult them at least once as mentioned above.

Carol responds:
> Hogwarts should give Harry the same opportunities for
> professional training that it gives any other student.
> Do students with a talent for Transfiguration or Potions
> get special help at Hogwarts?

Shaun:

Yes, they do. Hermione's timeturner is a clear example of that, and it seems 
likely that Percy must have had one as well, given the number of OWLs he 
achieved. Hogwarts does assist unusually gifted students.

> Not unless you count the Slug Club. And Harry would have
> six years to play Quidditch. Given that he's a natural, it
> makes no difference. He wins games from the moment he first
> sits on a broom. He doesn't need teachers bending the rules
> for him and buying him the best broom available at the time.
> (As for real-world practice, I seem to recall the old USSR
> giving young athletes special training at the expense of
> their regular education. I don't see schools in the Free
> World giving special privileges to eleven-year-old
> prodigies.)

Shaun:

I do - often. But then again, I'm heavily involved in the education of 
gifted children (co-author of the Legacy Award winning 'High IQ Kids: 
Collected Insights, Information, and Personal Stories from the Experts' 
published in 2007) and so I have to be more aware of these things than most 
people.

My own school - and others like it - routintely gave 'special privileges' to 
'prodigies'. Including me, as it happens. Especially athletes - it's 
produced a lot of elite athletes over the years, and part of the reason for 
that is the support provided for them. Australia is part of the 'free 
world' - we've got special schools here for athletes. And for artists. As 
well as for the very bright. I know of similar schools in both the US and 
the UK.

Yes, the Soviet Union was famous for it. So was East Germany. And I don't 
know of any free world country that goes quite as deeply into it as they 
did. But I know of plenty of schools that do give them special treatment.

(Although not necessarily 'at the expense of their regular education'. At my 
school, all those who got 'special treatment' were still expected to meet 
the normal day to day requirements of the school in all but the most 
exceptional circumstances.)

Yours Without Wax, Dreadnought
Shaun Hately | www.alphalink.com.au/~drednort/thelab.html
(ISTJ)       | drednort at alphalink.com.au | ICQ: 6898200
"You know the very powerful and the very stupid have one
thing in common. They don't alter their views to fit the
facts. They alter the facts to fit the views. Which can be
uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that
need altering." The Doctor - Doctor Who: The Face of Evil
Where am I: Frankston, Victoria, Australia