What it means to teach gifted learners well(nagc.org)
nagc.org
What it means to teach gifted learners well
http://www.nagc.org/resources-publications/gifted-education-practices/what-it-means-teach-gifted-learners-well
233 comments
As I've gotten older I look back and wish I had any sort of mentor in my life for certain areas I struggled to learn in myself -- programming especially. I REALLY wanted to learn languages like C when I was a kid but it was just NOT happening. I was starting from nothing, borrowing library books I couldn't even remotely make sense of. I know for sure I could have learned, but it just wasn't going to happen by reading a textbook (especially when they all assumed I was running DOS, Windows or UNIX and I only had a Mac -- so the compiler disk they included was always completely useless to me). If I had a mentor in my life, even a junior/intermediate one, it would have been completely different. For this reason, I work especially hard to mentor people when I can, and open doors for them to show what's possible.
Yes, and I really wish our primary education had any other IT classes than learning powerpoints, emails and making those funky 3D titles in word(I think this might be changing?). When I was 13 I was playing a cave flyer with my friends that had weapons programmed in lua files. We had so much fun copy pasting different weapons together, we even made an unofficial weaponmodpack that was popular for a few weeks. We didn't know any programming and it was basically just number tweaking and if there was a crash you would start from scratch. There was one older guy we know from an MMO we played who developed a "bananabomb" for us, and I wish we would have had more time to be mentored by him, but he was quite busy with a developer dayjob. From that experience we felt like programming was just some magic behind the curtains, something out of reach, something we couldn't do. 10 years later after I went to UNI and learned Hello world it all clicked and felt so simple. Why didn't anyone teach me/tell me how to learn the very very basics for 23 years? Why didn't I just google it? I don't know, but I think a mentor would have helped! I don't regret the path I took to where I am now, but occasionally wonder what if.
It's really clear to me that short feedback loops and visual output are what make programming accessible.
In middle school I was in the most advanced computer class offered. It involved lots and lots of typing practice and basically just doing office-work projects in random Mac programs. My biggest regret was that the promised "programming" lessons consisted of typing printed Java code from a piece of paper and into a text file. No explanation of what the symbols were, what Java was, nothing. I was pissed. I failed that module. I felt so misled that I flat out refused to do the assignments.
From then on I resolved to teach myself. I somehow convinced my mom to buy us a computer. Once we got dial-up, I struggled with VBA, Flash Actionscript, C++, Tcl, Python and on and on. None of it had a manageable learning curve for me.
One day, I discovered Game Maker. The day Mark Overmars introduced the C++/JS mash-up that is Game Maker Language changed my life. I learned how to plan projects, how to invoke spells of hyperfocus, how to read technical documentation and on and on. It taught me algebra concepts way before I knew what algebra even was. That was all possible because I could type some stuff into the editor, and within a few minutes, actually see sprites move around and respond to my input.
Damn. It's been 20 years. I feel like I should be a coding God now. It's funny because I don't expect myself to be Shakespeare just because I've been writing words my whole life... Anyways, my mind wanders.
Oh, tutors. I never had a tutor. If you want to make your kid a genius, get them a 1:1 tutor. That provides social modeling, mentorship, immediate feedback and personalized lessons. I would venture to say that tutors may still be valuable, even to adults...
In middle school I was in the most advanced computer class offered. It involved lots and lots of typing practice and basically just doing office-work projects in random Mac programs. My biggest regret was that the promised "programming" lessons consisted of typing printed Java code from a piece of paper and into a text file. No explanation of what the symbols were, what Java was, nothing. I was pissed. I failed that module. I felt so misled that I flat out refused to do the assignments.
From then on I resolved to teach myself. I somehow convinced my mom to buy us a computer. Once we got dial-up, I struggled with VBA, Flash Actionscript, C++, Tcl, Python and on and on. None of it had a manageable learning curve for me.
One day, I discovered Game Maker. The day Mark Overmars introduced the C++/JS mash-up that is Game Maker Language changed my life. I learned how to plan projects, how to invoke spells of hyperfocus, how to read technical documentation and on and on. It taught me algebra concepts way before I knew what algebra even was. That was all possible because I could type some stuff into the editor, and within a few minutes, actually see sprites move around and respond to my input.
Damn. It's been 20 years. I feel like I should be a coding God now. It's funny because I don't expect myself to be Shakespeare just because I've been writing words my whole life... Anyways, my mind wanders.
Oh, tutors. I never had a tutor. If you want to make your kid a genius, get them a 1:1 tutor. That provides social modeling, mentorship, immediate feedback and personalized lessons. I would venture to say that tutors may still be valuable, even to adults...
"Damn. It's been 20 years. I feel like I should be a coding God now. It's funny because I don't expect myself to be Shakespeare just because I've been writing words my whole life..."
Thats actually a good point, why do we have this assumption in tech?
Thats actually a good point, why do we have this assumption in tech?
I think some people can actually achieve continual improvement if they can master reflective/deliberate practice. I've been wracking my brain trying to think of what the discrete components of my coding are. Do I judge my functions, files, PRs?
In writing this comment, I think doing a short code review of what I produced in the last session might make sense. The more quickly I advance at some skill, the more quickly I can add/tweak my code review.
From my understanding and experience, that sort of reflection on each output of skillful work turbo charges improvement. I did it at a phone center job, where I kept a spreadsheet with a prediction of what service rating the customer would give me, and a short blurb of what I did well and what I could improve. That seriously blasted me to the top. This also worked when I was in a band. When rehearsing, we would play through our set in full while recording, then afterwards we would immediately run to the computer to listen back and discuss what to work on. Within weeks we were able to meet our goal of playing with our main influence, a band called Protomartyr.
In writing this comment, I think doing a short code review of what I produced in the last session might make sense. The more quickly I advance at some skill, the more quickly I can add/tweak my code review.
From my understanding and experience, that sort of reflection on each output of skillful work turbo charges improvement. I did it at a phone center job, where I kept a spreadsheet with a prediction of what service rating the customer would give me, and a short blurb of what I did well and what I could improve. That seriously blasted me to the top. This also worked when I was in a band. When rehearsing, we would play through our set in full while recording, then afterwards we would immediately run to the computer to listen back and discuss what to work on. Within weeks we were able to meet our goal of playing with our main influence, a band called Protomartyr.
> I really wish our primary education had any other IT classes than learning powerpoints, emails and making those funky 3D titles in word(I think this might be changing?).
In the US there's definitely a big effort to have CS/programming courses in high schools but the big problem is finding qualified teachers. Since teachers in the US tend to get paid much less than even low-end software developer jobs in the same city, most people with any CS skill tend to go into the software industry instead of teaching.
In the US there's definitely a big effort to have CS/programming courses in high schools but the big problem is finding qualified teachers. Since teachers in the US tend to get paid much less than even low-end software developer jobs in the same city, most people with any CS skill tend to go into the software industry instead of teaching.
I really want to be a teacher. I cannot, in good faith to my family, lower their standard of living to the point where we could afford for me to be one. A 1st year teacher where I am makes about 60% of my current salary, and that was true even before I switched over to software. My first job out of college as a mechanical engineer, I made ~$60k a year, equivalent to roughly $70k nowadays. A new high school teacher in Texas makes about $50k in my area. The difference is that, in a decade, my salary doubled; theirs went up by about 10%.
I would take a pay cut to work as a teacher, especially for the ~70 working days off, which is about triple what I have now. A 50% cut isn't feasible though.
I would take a pay cut to work as a teacher, especially for the ~70 working days off, which is about triple what I have now. A 50% cut isn't feasible though.
> I REALLY wanted to learn languages like C when I was a kid but it was just NOT happening. I was starting from nothing, borrowing library books I couldn't even remotely make sense of.
Depending on what "as a kid" means and your age, did you not try to find such people on internet forums dedicated to (for example) C? I also wanted to learn C when I was a child and did so with those resources (as well as books, which were as impenetrable back then as you already indicated).
Depending on what "as a kid" means and your age, did you not try to find such people on internet forums dedicated to (for example) C? I also wanted to learn C when I was a child and did so with those resources (as well as books, which were as impenetrable back then as you already indicated).
For many of us internet wasn't available until middle teenage and then it was first only available on a few select machines on the school. I only realized forums existed sometime after I was 21. And I am born in the eighties
We had (limited) internet very early and it is easy to forget not everyone did.
I like to read child psychology and a recurring theme is that children, especially as they reach adolescence, benefit greatly from mentors outside of their immediate family. Whether it’s an uncle or a retired Russian maths professor, it tends to offer something parents often can’t at those (and sometimes all) stages of development.
I’ve found that somewhat liberating as a parent. We should all embrace and encourage that if we can find it for our kids.
I’ve found that somewhat liberating as a parent. We should all embrace and encourage that if we can find it for our kids.
Yes, but with the widespread hysteria about pedophiles many potential mentors will decline. Already the suggestion that to work with children under public supervision you need a background check is an insult.
It is a serious deterrent. I became a volunteer scouts leader for my son’s scouts group some years ago and the process was unnerving. Background check from police, tested on generally not being a predator for a significant portion of the written application, literally not allowed around kids until it’s fully reviewed and approved.
I get it. Bad stuff happens sometimes. The message is clear though that (especially as a male), I’m not trusted around kids until confirmed and on record to be safe.
That’s not conducive to natural relationships with kids - you’re constantly on guard and cognizant of the fact that you’re a perceived threat.
edit: That was a little negative. I should add that it's still worth doing. There's no way to change that perception other than by doing good and reassuring people. More importantly, kids having good experiences because people make the time for them matters more than resenting being perceived as a creep all the time. Yeah, it's a drag, but mostly I ignore it and hike with the kids, teach them knots, or whatever. It's fine.
I get it. Bad stuff happens sometimes. The message is clear though that (especially as a male), I’m not trusted around kids until confirmed and on record to be safe.
That’s not conducive to natural relationships with kids - you’re constantly on guard and cognizant of the fact that you’re a perceived threat.
edit: That was a little negative. I should add that it's still worth doing. There's no way to change that perception other than by doing good and reassuring people. More importantly, kids having good experiences because people make the time for them matters more than resenting being perceived as a creep all the time. Yeah, it's a drag, but mostly I ignore it and hike with the kids, teach them knots, or whatever. It's fine.
One part of this is the rise in sex predator panic. I am well aware that child sexual abuse is a severe problem but one thing I will never do is spend time alone with children who are not mine. Not even my nieces, because one time my eldest niece lied about me doing something that I didn't, and I can't take that risk. In contrast, when I was a child, I regularly spent time alone with men of my father's age.
"Anyway, I think that many, perhaps most kids need mentors/coaches. Parents can only do so much, and teenagers don’t want to listen to their parents anyway"
There is an old saying: it takes a village to raise a child. So I am looking forward for the villages to revitalize with smart people ..
There is an old saying: it takes a village to raise a child. So I am looking forward for the villages to revitalize with smart people ..
I really appreciate prefacing the comment, "I'm not gifted".
Getting any sort of advanced instruction for our daughter has been like pulling teeth. I assumed it would be readily available, given that we live in the heart of Silicon Valley and our child attends a very well-funded public school.
The school started off saying they don't offer advanced instruction, then grudgingly agreed to assess our child to see if she even would require it. But all of their "assessments" are closed-ended, which means she cannot actually demonstrate her proficiency level.
Even when faced with her clearly advanced abilities (3.5 grades ahead in math, according to the diagnostic from the online math platform they use), they are still doing their best to hold her back. Their rallying cry? "Even Steph Curry practices dribbling".
After hearing this for the third time, I finally pointed out that Steph Curry wouldn't have become who he is if he were never allowed to practice anything but dribbling. The school has continued dragging their feet.
The unsurprising result is that advanced students leave for private schools. We never would have bought a home in an expensive district had we anticipated departing for a private. I would recommend that parents interested in good schooling in this area look into Redwood City over Menlo Park or Palo Alto, since it has a magnet program for 3-8 and is considerably less expensive.
This whole process has been very disappointing (and surprising) for me, since I had a very different experience growing up. I went to public schools in Sacramento, where magnet programs were freely available and students could open enroll from anywhere in the region. We had classmates who lived halfway to Tahoe. It was great. I understand their programs are still up and running, and it's shocking that the well-heeled districts around here are so hostile to advanced instruction.
Happy to connect with other nearby parents of young kids. Contact info is in profile.
The school started off saying they don't offer advanced instruction, then grudgingly agreed to assess our child to see if she even would require it. But all of their "assessments" are closed-ended, which means she cannot actually demonstrate her proficiency level.
Even when faced with her clearly advanced abilities (3.5 grades ahead in math, according to the diagnostic from the online math platform they use), they are still doing their best to hold her back. Their rallying cry? "Even Steph Curry practices dribbling".
After hearing this for the third time, I finally pointed out that Steph Curry wouldn't have become who he is if he were never allowed to practice anything but dribbling. The school has continued dragging their feet.
The unsurprising result is that advanced students leave for private schools. We never would have bought a home in an expensive district had we anticipated departing for a private. I would recommend that parents interested in good schooling in this area look into Redwood City over Menlo Park or Palo Alto, since it has a magnet program for 3-8 and is considerably less expensive.
This whole process has been very disappointing (and surprising) for me, since I had a very different experience growing up. I went to public schools in Sacramento, where magnet programs were freely available and students could open enroll from anywhere in the region. We had classmates who lived halfway to Tahoe. It was great. I understand their programs are still up and running, and it's shocking that the well-heeled districts around here are so hostile to advanced instruction.
Happy to connect with other nearby parents of young kids. Contact info is in profile.
This is the result of woke policies in public schools. They already removed gifted programs and magnet schools because most of the students benefiting from the programs were White and Asian (more Asian). For the same reason they are trying to remove calculus [1][2]. And the UC system will stop accepting SAT scores [3].
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/04/us/california-math-curric...
[2] https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-05-20/californ...
[3] https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-11-18/uc-slams...
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/04/us/california-math-curric...
[2] https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-05-20/californ...
[3] https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-11-18/uc-slams...
The whole "woke" angle is just a case of admittedly convenient misdirection. Government schools have always consistently pushed for mediocrity and getting rid of any sort of accountability re: educational outcomes, and this latest instance is no different. Standards and accountability can only be achieved and sustained via meaningful competition (such as 'magnet' schools striving to compete with private educational offerings).
How is it misdirection if most of the people really pushing this are “woke”?
Because the root cause is that the government has a monopoly on public schools. It is only a recent development that the indoctrination of the captive audience has become enticing for woke proselytizers.
The issue with gifted children isn't about indoctrinating them to whatever beliefs. It's the destructive belief that high academic achievement is the result of some unfair "privilege" which they seek to counter by limiting opportunities for advancement.
Yes, of course. Evangelists are happy to use all the tools at their disposal - both overt preaching and structural changes that conflate equality of outcome with fairness regardless of the means of achieving it.
If parents had a way of avoiding government schools, it would be far less enticing for those with an agenda to capture them.
If parents had a way of avoiding government schools, it would be far less enticing for those with an agenda to capture them.
This is the root of the problem. They saw Harrison Bergeron as a roadmap, not as a cautionary tale
Being able to attain high academic achievement IS privilege itself, a far far more real one than most privileges people jaw on about. Your standardized test scores to a large extent determine your quality of life.
On some level it’s positively shocking that gifted classes have lasted as long as they have. Looked at from a thousand mile out view a TON of the woke agenda is direct and indirect attacks on those that perform well on standardized tests.
On some level it’s positively shocking that gifted classes have lasted as long as they have. Looked at from a thousand mile out view a TON of the woke agenda is direct and indirect attacks on those that perform well on standardized tests.
Why would having "gifted" classes detract from other students? In the case of OP's daughter giving her permission to simply skip math class and self-tutor in an empty classroom (by e.g. self-studying a more advanced textbook) would probably be an improvement over having to sit through a class that's below her level.
Once you do that less "privileged" students also benefit, since the teaching resources being spent on that bored student will be freed up to focus on the smaller class of students that need more assistance.
I don't see why it's a given that this is guaranteed to result in worse outcomes by any measure, even "woke" ones that might consider it a loss if OP's daughter pulls ahead further from the median grade, even if the median also goes up as a result of better spent teaching resources.
Once you do that less "privileged" students also benefit, since the teaching resources being spent on that bored student will be freed up to focus on the smaller class of students that need more assistance.
I don't see why it's a given that this is guaranteed to result in worse outcomes by any measure, even "woke" ones that might consider it a loss if OP's daughter pulls ahead further from the median grade, even if the median also goes up as a result of better spent teaching resources.
> Why would having "gifted" classes detract from other students?
Note that I am a fan of gifted classes, but to answer your question:
1. If you pull out gifted kids from classes with simply “above average” kids, you lower the ceiling of what it means to be “the best”. As a result, the above average kids may not push themselves as hard/far. This concept is common in sports as well — the competition yields higher results.
2. The class that is left, usually an honors class, ends up moving much more slowly. A dirty little secret of teaching is that the pace of a class is limited to roughly the ability level of the bottom third of the class. Any faster, and you have lost so many people that the class can’t self-correct via peer interaction. Any slower, and you cause so many of the high performers to lose interest that motivation becomes an issue. When you pull the gifted kids out of, for example, an honors class, the level of the bottom third of that class often drops precipitously.
I personally don’t think that these are good reasons to eliminate gifted classes. I think it points to the need for more effective/efficient differentiated instruction. But that would require good teachers and good administration, and imho those things are extremely difficult to have at scale.
Note that I am a fan of gifted classes, but to answer your question:
1. If you pull out gifted kids from classes with simply “above average” kids, you lower the ceiling of what it means to be “the best”. As a result, the above average kids may not push themselves as hard/far. This concept is common in sports as well — the competition yields higher results.
2. The class that is left, usually an honors class, ends up moving much more slowly. A dirty little secret of teaching is that the pace of a class is limited to roughly the ability level of the bottom third of the class. Any faster, and you have lost so many people that the class can’t self-correct via peer interaction. Any slower, and you cause so many of the high performers to lose interest that motivation becomes an issue. When you pull the gifted kids out of, for example, an honors class, the level of the bottom third of that class often drops precipitously.
I personally don’t think that these are good reasons to eliminate gifted classes. I think it points to the need for more effective/efficient differentiated instruction. But that would require good teachers and good administration, and imho those things are extremely difficult to have at scale.
For 2, in the honors class, the bottom third is closer to the top once the gifted kids have left. So aren't they all able to move faster as a percentage of their capability without the gifted kids? And isn't that what should be optimized?
Maybe.
What usually happens, due to student teacher ratios being a thing, is that the honors class is replenished with lower ability students from the “regular” (i.e., non-honors) class, so the average is brought down fairly substantially.
Note that all of this is a non-issue if you are only pulling a few kids out of a school to go to a magnet high school or something similar.
An example of this can be seen in Japan where the gifted and motivated students are moved into magnet schools for high school, but there is relatively little negative impact on the regular high school, while the magnet high school students get an eduction that pushes their intellectual boundaries.
What usually happens, due to student teacher ratios being a thing, is that the honors class is replenished with lower ability students from the “regular” (i.e., non-honors) class, so the average is brought down fairly substantially.
Note that all of this is a non-issue if you are only pulling a few kids out of a school to go to a magnet high school or something similar.
An example of this can be seen in Japan where the gifted and motivated students are moved into magnet schools for high school, but there is relatively little negative impact on the regular high school, while the magnet high school students get an eduction that pushes their intellectual boundaries.
If you pull lots of kids from a regular class, they're also going to benefit from a narrower spread of abilities.
The more meaningful argument against this kind of fine-grained tracking is that it creates pathological incentives among teachers. Every teacher is going to want to teach the "easy" classes with more skilled kids, so the bottom level of students gets stuck with very low-quality teachers and they don't get anything near a fair chance to improve - they're basically stuck at that level.
You could fix this by training teachers better on how to actually educate slower kids effectively (direct instructional methods work very well there) but that approach is not popular either because it's seen as trivializing the teacher's job - somehow, it is a given that both students and teachers should always be left to "discover things by themselves".
The more meaningful argument against this kind of fine-grained tracking is that it creates pathological incentives among teachers. Every teacher is going to want to teach the "easy" classes with more skilled kids, so the bottom level of students gets stuck with very low-quality teachers and they don't get anything near a fair chance to improve - they're basically stuck at that level.
You could fix this by training teachers better on how to actually educate slower kids effectively (direct instructional methods work very well there) but that approach is not popular either because it's seen as trivializing the teacher's job - somehow, it is a given that both students and teachers should always be left to "discover things by themselves".
I realized recently that some people have a view of education that is much more competition-oriented than my default worldview. E.g. the set of parents who want to make sure their kids do well relative to all the other kids in order to have a higher chance of success in the competitions later on in life (college, jobs, social status, wealth).
Fairness (in the sense of trying to create a level playing field and make sure nobody has unfair advantages) is important to the extent that something is a competition.
This means people who see education as competition will care about fairness - either they will want things to be truly fair or they will want any unfairness to be in their favor.
So from this point of view, special classes for kids who are already doing better can be seen as an unfair advantage (especially because there's plenty of real bias involved in determining which kids actually end up on those classes).
I think we need to fix the biased selection process and make it more possible for more kids to benefit from advanced learning opportunities, especially kids whose parents don't have the resources to take them out of public school to do something more individualized.
Fairness (in the sense of trying to create a level playing field and make sure nobody has unfair advantages) is important to the extent that something is a competition.
This means people who see education as competition will care about fairness - either they will want things to be truly fair or they will want any unfairness to be in their favor.
So from this point of view, special classes for kids who are already doing better can be seen as an unfair advantage (especially because there's plenty of real bias involved in determining which kids actually end up on those classes).
I think we need to fix the biased selection process and make it more possible for more kids to benefit from advanced learning opportunities, especially kids whose parents don't have the resources to take them out of public school to do something more individualized.
If you put slower kids into (legitimately) accelerated programs they just get left behind and do even worse. When you separate children into classes that proceed at different rates based on how fast they learn, everyone is actually getting their own "special classes".
Meanwhile if you try to handicap parents who care, to bring their children to the level of parents who don't care, they just take their children out of the system and put them in private schools. Except of course for the poor gifted kids stuck in public school, ironically, who you wanted to help.
Meanwhile if you try to handicap parents who care, to bring their children to the level of parents who don't care, they just take their children out of the system and put them in private schools. Except of course for the poor gifted kids stuck in public school, ironically, who you wanted to help.
I think the poster was generally referring to the fact that students who progress at a faster rate will have an advantage by simple virtue of having covered more material in school. They will be more preferred by colleges which leads to being more preferred for jobs. Basically a "rich get richer" effect.
Of course the idea that this is a bad thing (as opposed to being exactly how a merit-based system is supposed to work) is based on presupposing that higher performance was the result of unfair discrimination in the first place.
Of course the idea that this is a bad thing (as opposed to being exactly how a merit-based system is supposed to work) is based on presupposing that higher performance was the result of unfair discrimination in the first place.
My contention is that you don't have to presuppose the higher performance was a result of higher discrimination in the first place, my contention is that you can argue that "merit" as measured by academic achievement and standardized testing is not worthy of its status.
It's clear that diversity programs lead to the intake of those who are worse test takers. Yet companies who hire more diverse people correlate to companies which have better financial outcomes for investors. Yet school systems systemically put certain students who cover lots of material and do well on tests into special classes, put them in the best schools, put them into the best jobs, in spite of this observation. These students, so the idea of merit goes, will be more productive and the benefits they have to society will trickle down to the rest, yet in practice what we see in society is a society stratified where those who are part of communities where there are fewer good test takers are disadvantaged.
My contention is more fundamental, it's an attack on the very validity of the testing itself, and testing determines who gets into programs like gifted classes. Testing in practice has the purpose of discrimination in favour of an elite few, is inherently contentious and ripe for political assault.
It's clear that diversity programs lead to the intake of those who are worse test takers. Yet companies who hire more diverse people correlate to companies which have better financial outcomes for investors. Yet school systems systemically put certain students who cover lots of material and do well on tests into special classes, put them in the best schools, put them into the best jobs, in spite of this observation. These students, so the idea of merit goes, will be more productive and the benefits they have to society will trickle down to the rest, yet in practice what we see in society is a society stratified where those who are part of communities where there are fewer good test takers are disadvantaged.
My contention is more fundamental, it's an attack on the very validity of the testing itself, and testing determines who gets into programs like gifted classes. Testing in practice has the purpose of discrimination in favour of an elite few, is inherently contentious and ripe for political assault.
I self-studied advanced textbooks in the same classroom with the rest of the class. The teacher approved it though and sometimes gave me tasks she couldn't solve herself.
> Your standardized test scores to a large extent determine your quality of life.
This is largely untrue unless one defines quality of life with a very narrow set of criteria and/or lives in a relatively small echo chamber.
I know tons of people with very high scores who have very low QoL, and I know many multiples of that with mediocre scores who have very high QoL.
The skill (or maybe luck) to find a way to use the abilities one does have in order to provide high utility seems to be the common thread in the high QoL folks.
This is largely untrue unless one defines quality of life with a very narrow set of criteria and/or lives in a relatively small echo chamber.
I know tons of people with very high scores who have very low QoL, and I know many multiples of that with mediocre scores who have very high QoL.
The skill (or maybe luck) to find a way to use the abilities one does have in order to provide high utility seems to be the common thread in the high QoL folks.
Not true. Most of European schools are govt-run, yet there are pretty good programs for "gifted" people, mainly centered around competitions, culminating in the international IMO and IOI.
A lot of education for gifted people happens outside of school: clubs, correspondence competitions (these days probably all online). Also, gifted people often learn from books.
In most large cities, there is not a single government which has a monopoly on public schools: there are generally multiple individual school districts which each try to compete for the wealthiest students. That results in some school districts being more amenable toward a focus on gifted programs and some being less so. School boards are subject to elections, which does mean that the priorities of the schools are not homogeneous.
Of course there are lots of layers of laws and bureaucracies above school districts that can apply curricula or regulations to temper this, but unlike state governments, where representatives are elected on a slate of issues and tied to political parties, school boards are elected on just 1 issue: how are they going to run the schools.
Of course there are lots of layers of laws and bureaucracies above school districts that can apply curricula or regulations to temper this, but unlike state governments, where representatives are elected on a slate of issues and tied to political parties, school boards are elected on just 1 issue: how are they going to run the schools.
Some governments do hold competitions between public schools. Like https://www.ipho2021.lt/ but on a local scale.
The government will always have a monopoly on public schools, that are, by definition, publicly funded by the government.
What do you mean by woke?
Social media-fueled, very leftwing ideologues. Typically also trying to “cancel” those they disagree with.
What is "woke"?
A "woke" claim asserts that some widely accepted and seemingly race-neutral practice is actually racist, whether in its intent or its effects. These arguments are often made in terms of disparate impact. Gifted and talented education disproportionately benefits white and Asian students.
I appreciate the neutral and factual explanation of the term, as a reader from Europe, with English as third language. And I do not understand the downvotes, both to your explanation or to the equally neutral question.
The definition of "woke" is like the definition of "hipster". Whatever these words might originally have meant in some narrow context, they are now used as vague condescending insults for a broad range of people the person speaking doesn’t like.
Find 10 people opposed to “woke” and you’ll get 12 or 13 distinct explanations/criteria for the term.
If you substitute “poopyhead” for “woke” across the internet it won’t substantively change the meaning of anything you read.
Find 10 people opposed to “woke” and you’ll get 12 or 13 distinct explanations/criteria for the term.
If you substitute “poopyhead” for “woke” across the internet it won’t substantively change the meaning of anything you read.
That's not right. Woke is an adjective form of SJW (Social Justice Warrior) and almost exclusively used by people who disparage people interested in social justice in a sneering way. It is meant to be insulting but it does have meaning.
It’s not that these words have no meaning. The problem is that the meaning is vague and changes depending on the speaker and context, so that to the reader/listener it is generally impossible to tell quite what meaning is intended. The word says more about the identity politics of the user than it does about the target.
If you want a more detailed analysis of current usage, https://ctrlzmag.com/series-what-is-woke-4-the-decline/
If you want a more detailed analysis of current usage, https://ctrlzmag.com/series-what-is-woke-4-the-decline/
> Find 10 people opposed to “woke” and you’ll get 12 or 13 distinct explanations/criteria for the term.
You gave a different definition to upthread.
You gave a different definition to upthread.
“Woke” is in practice a vague pejorative that people use to redirect a conversation from critical thinking to tribal thinking.
It is used to elide facts and specifics, like measurable and persistent racial disparities in social outcomes including education. Instead we are invited to consider whether a given person or policy is “woke”, which is not objectively measurable in any way.
It is used to elide facts and specifics, like measurable and persistent racial disparities in social outcomes including education. Instead we are invited to consider whether a given person or policy is “woke”, which is not objectively measurable in any way.
Are you sure that isn't what you are doing by refusing to consider the specifics of critics' complaints?
Woke policies have a societal/political agenda in terms of ethnic and other favored groups. That is by definition tribal thinking.
Woke policies have a societal/political agenda in terms of ethnic and other favored groups. That is by definition tribal thinking.
If there are specific complaints about a policy, we can consider those directly. No need to apply a reductive label. The top comment was quite specific.
All policies represent agendas and have implications for groups within society, including policies implemented in the past that we live under today. To different perspectives, any given policy will have different upsides and downsides. Moving forward is about finding balance, consensus, or compromise among these perspectives.
Applying a simple label like “woke” is an invitation to ignore this complexity in favor of binary (“is this woke or not”) or linear (“how woke is this”) modes of thought. It’s also an invitation to prejudge the merit based on a sense of whether an idea comes from inside or outside the tribe.
It’s like trying to troubleshoot a space station by focusing on whether solutions seem “cool” or not.
All policies represent agendas and have implications for groups within society, including policies implemented in the past that we live under today. To different perspectives, any given policy will have different upsides and downsides. Moving forward is about finding balance, consensus, or compromise among these perspectives.
Applying a simple label like “woke” is an invitation to ignore this complexity in favor of binary (“is this woke or not”) or linear (“how woke is this”) modes of thought. It’s also an invitation to prejudge the merit based on a sense of whether an idea comes from inside or outside the tribe.
It’s like trying to troubleshoot a space station by focusing on whether solutions seem “cool” or not.
The downvotes are because this person is unfairly presenting a single perspective on what the "woke" term means. If you aren't willing to present other perspectives and engage with them in good faith, then you're a propagandist.
It is much better to read a single factual and accurate explanation, than to read two biased perspectives from two shitheads on the opposite sides of political spectrum.
Example of 'Woke', non race, non class issue: Relative Age Effect.
If you are born in November you have almost no chance of becoming a star athlete, if you are born in January your chances are triple.
Noone designed the system to be unjust, but noone throught about ensuring it's fair either, and for decades noone questioned it.
That's what 'Woke' people claim to 'detect'. Sometines it's right, sometimes it's wrong.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_age_effect
Example of 'Woke', non race, non class issue: Relative Age Effect.
If you are born in November you have almost no chance of becoming a star athlete, if you are born in January your chances are triple.
Noone designed the system to be unjust, but noone throught about ensuring it's fair either, and for decades noone questioned it.
That's what 'Woke' people claim to 'detect'. Sometines it's right, sometimes it's wrong.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_age_effect
This description assumes that a neutral in intent system is unfair, this assumption is specifically woke bias since it prefers equality of result.
Results matter as much as Intent does - communists had great intent, and where did it get them. Neoliberals have great intent and volumes of theory, all they have to show for it is a stangnant economy and rising inequality.
> communists had great intent
They had great propaganda, which is not the same thing.
They had great propaganda, which is not the same thing.
I am going to present a sane and rational counter-argument for completeness. I am personally undecided on some of these issues.
The counter argument would go something like this:
Structural racism and sexism are so deeply embedded in society that it's hopeless to try to eliminate these tendencies directly. Not only are these tendencies complex, systematic, and often unconscious, they are also difficult to impossible to measure. Outcome on the other hand is easy to measure.
If you start with the hypothesis that at least a large chunk of differences in outcome are a result of differences in opportunity (including hidden ones), then addressing outcome directly is the most effective way to try to combat bias. One way to do this is to eliminate societal systems and programs that seem to lead to outcomes (either positive or negative) that differ statistically from the baseline race and sex distribution in society.
The root of this debate seems to be biological determinism. The "right" (loosely defined) side of this debate argues that once overt racism and sexism are removed most of the remaining differences in ability and outcome that manifest are biologically innate. The "left" (again loosely defined) argues that this is at best unproven and point to the reported subjective experiences of women and minorities in which they report continuous low-grade racism and sexism that remains even after racism and sexism of the overt codified variety are removed.
The counter argument would go something like this:
Structural racism and sexism are so deeply embedded in society that it's hopeless to try to eliminate these tendencies directly. Not only are these tendencies complex, systematic, and often unconscious, they are also difficult to impossible to measure. Outcome on the other hand is easy to measure.
If you start with the hypothesis that at least a large chunk of differences in outcome are a result of differences in opportunity (including hidden ones), then addressing outcome directly is the most effective way to try to combat bias. One way to do this is to eliminate societal systems and programs that seem to lead to outcomes (either positive or negative) that differ statistically from the baseline race and sex distribution in society.
The root of this debate seems to be biological determinism. The "right" (loosely defined) side of this debate argues that once overt racism and sexism are removed most of the remaining differences in ability and outcome that manifest are biologically innate. The "left" (again loosely defined) argues that this is at best unproven and point to the reported subjective experiences of women and minorities in which they report continuous low-grade racism and sexism that remains even after racism and sexism of the overt codified variety are removed.
> The root of this debate seems to be biological determinism. The "right" (loosely defined) side of this debate argues that once overt racism and sexism are removed most of the remaining differences in ability and outcome that manifest are biologically innate.
"Biological determinism" is a huge red herring here. There are lots of causally-relevant factors wrt. social outcomes that have nothing to do with either biology or perceived prejudice/discrimination (however defined). Biological differences might explain some of the different preferences across genders (the broad 'people vs. things' orientation that even seems to show up in experiments with infants), but they're realistically irrelevant to anything else that the "woke" actually care about.
"Biological determinism" is a huge red herring here. There are lots of causally-relevant factors wrt. social outcomes that have nothing to do with either biology or perceived prejudice/discrimination (however defined). Biological differences might explain some of the different preferences across genders (the broad 'people vs. things' orientation that even seems to show up in experiments with infants), but they're realistically irrelevant to anything else that the "woke" actually care about.
Generally speaking “woke” means people who believe that “equality of outcome” rather than “equality of opportunity” is the goal.
What does it mean to give "equality of opportunity" to a black child in America, who's ancestors were enslaved, who's great grandparent was lynched, who's grandparents couldn't vote, who's parents couldn't go to university because of discrimination?
Who lives in a country where three white men can murder a black jogger, and it requires a international outcry for the police to prosecute?
As I understand "woke", it does mean trying to equalise "opportunity"; it just recognises that "opportunity" in the sense of "something offered" is not the same as "opportunity" in the sense of "the chance to do well", and tries to correct that.
In this particular case, does it make sense to take away gifted and talented programmes? There is clearly equality of opportunity offered. But a woke response might be to also identify individuals in disadvantaged groups who would be at that level were it not for their disadvantage and help them get there.
Who lives in a country where three white men can murder a black jogger, and it requires a international outcry for the police to prosecute?
As I understand "woke", it does mean trying to equalise "opportunity"; it just recognises that "opportunity" in the sense of "something offered" is not the same as "opportunity" in the sense of "the chance to do well", and tries to correct that.
In this particular case, does it make sense to take away gifted and talented programmes? There is clearly equality of opportunity offered. But a woke response might be to also identify individuals in disadvantaged groups who would be at that level were it not for their disadvantage and help them get there.
> What does it mean to give "equality of opportunity" to a black child in America, who's ancestors were enslaved, who's great grandparent was lynched, who's grandparents couldn't vote, who's parents couldn't go to university because of discrimination?
Much of this applies almost equally to Slav kids in America (when you account for what their origin countries were like) yet they seem to do pretty well compared to Blacks. So I think there's reason to be skeptical about your claim that "we've offered plenty enough to the Black community and it hasn't helped, so equality of opportunity itself must be the problem". We haven't done nearly enough for true equal opportunity to be achieved, and this goes equally for both mainstream society as a whole and the Black community itself which has often pushed in counterproductive directions.
Much of this applies almost equally to Slav kids in America (when you account for what their origin countries were like) yet they seem to do pretty well compared to Blacks. So I think there's reason to be skeptical about your claim that "we've offered plenty enough to the Black community and it hasn't helped, so equality of opportunity itself must be the problem". We haven't done nearly enough for true equal opportunity to be achieved, and this goes equally for both mainstream society as a whole and the Black community itself which has often pushed in counterproductive directions.
This is not correct. Woke is about perception of disadvantage based on race, inequal opportunity based.
As a term it is barely used except by people that overwhelmingly hate the culture (which as said, does not exist as an entity). Asserting what is true and what is not about the term in general doesn't work as a consequence and we should most closely try to approximate what the speaker in question means. I think you covered that well, but for a casual non-native reader it is important to have this expressed.
I appreciate the detail!
"Woke is an English adjective meaning 'alert to racial prejudice and discrimination' that originated in African-American Vernacular English (AAVE). Beginning in the 2010s, it came to encompass a broader awareness of social inequalities such as sexism, and has also been used as shorthand for left-wing ideas involving identity politics and social justice, such as the notion of white privilege and slavery reparations for African Americans.[0,1]"
[1]https://www.vox.com/culture/21437879/stay-woke-wokeness-hist...
Unfortunately like most terms associated with progressivism, feminism or race, almost no one here ever uses the term in good faith, understanding either its history or taking its purpose at face value, and it's simply become another anti-leftist pejorative.
To quote another post that's quickly disappeared from the front page here:
> the left’s insecurity about genetics is partly why so many have fallen completely for the critical theory cult, leaving reality far behind, and sustaining this new (and false) consensus at this point solely by punishment of dissent
That's pretty much the summary of wokeness.
> the left’s insecurity about genetics is partly why so many have fallen completely for the critical theory cult, leaving reality far behind, and sustaining this new (and false) consensus at this point solely by punishment of dissent
That's pretty much the summary of wokeness.
Wokeness is about caring about people who look different from oneself, and who aren't in positions of power. The summary you quoted is wrong on every level.
Source: Am leftist who is secure about genetics, though would prefer less methylation of my particular genes.
Source: Am leftist who is secure about genetics, though would prefer less methylation of my particular genes.
[deleted]
Entry level communist ideals, disguised or a bit diluted for easier public consumption
With some quibbles: the gifted programs aren’t being phased out entirely, assessments are just being moved to a state where they’re less gamified. The reason why note white and Asian people were on them was because they could pay to cram the gifted assessments, which then poisoned the whole program because those kids weren’t actually gifted.
SAT similarly is a pretty bad indicator of intelligence because there’s a pipeline of gaming them.
SAT similarly is a pretty bad indicator of intelligence because there’s a pipeline of gaming them.
Can you clarify what you think bringing a meaningless jab like "woke" into this discussion actually adds to the conversation?
> I would recommend that parents interested in good schooling in this area look into Redwood City over Menlo Park or Palo Alto, since it has a magnet program for 3-8 and is considerably less expensive.
Menlo Park and Palo Alto school districts are overrun with parents who want to push their child into advanced classes from the moment they can put sentences together. Having talked to many friends over the years who work in tech with me who grew up in these school districts (I didn't, my experience was very different), their parents constantly applied pressure to school administrators and counselors to push their child into advanced instruction. I know parents that would spend hours a day trying to pressure school administration to push their child along. I can only imagine this form of sandbagging is just to put the brakes on you and every other parent who wants to push their child as much as possible. You're competing against every other wealthy, pushy parent trying to push their children into advanced classes as well.
Menlo Park and Palo Alto school districts are overrun with parents who want to push their child into advanced classes from the moment they can put sentences together. Having talked to many friends over the years who work in tech with me who grew up in these school districts (I didn't, my experience was very different), their parents constantly applied pressure to school administrators and counselors to push their child into advanced instruction. I know parents that would spend hours a day trying to pressure school administration to push their child along. I can only imagine this form of sandbagging is just to put the brakes on you and every other parent who wants to push their child as much as possible. You're competing against every other wealthy, pushy parent trying to push their children into advanced classes as well.
If the districts are overrun with parents looking for advanced learning, why don't they offer it?
Palo Alto parents recently filed a lawsuit [1] claiming that PAUSD's system for offering advanced math unfairly discriminates against girls (who make up just 35 of the 162 students receiving advanced placement in middle school). Apparently the process involves an objective test and a subjective test, and you have to pass both in order to qualify.
1: https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2021/11/04/lawsuit-claim...
Palo Alto parents recently filed a lawsuit [1] claiming that PAUSD's system for offering advanced math unfairly discriminates against girls (who make up just 35 of the 162 students receiving advanced placement in middle school). Apparently the process involves an objective test and a subjective test, and you have to pass both in order to qualify.
1: https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2021/11/04/lawsuit-claim...
> If the districts are overrun with parents looking for advanced learning, why don't they offer it?
probably because a fair chunk of the kids aren't actually gifted, and if you cave to the parent's demands then you end up with a "if everyone is gifted, then no one is gifted" situation.
probably because a fair chunk of the kids aren't actually gifted, and if you cave to the parent's demands then you end up with a "if everyone is gifted, then no one is gifted" situation.
Our local school frequently mentions that their 50th percentile is at the level of the 75th percentile nationally, which indicates that a decent number of the students are in fact well above average.
That doesn't mean that the dilemma you mention wouldn't arise, but presumably there are objective tests that could be used to make determinations. It wouldn't be a panacea, but it would be better than ignoring advanced students like they're doing now.
That doesn't mean that the dilemma you mention wouldn't arise, but presumably there are objective tests that could be used to make determinations. It wouldn't be a panacea, but it would be better than ignoring advanced students like they're doing now.
Schools adjust their curriculums for the measured state of their student bodies. This is a major reason why they test and measure at the school level.
So if the school’s student body as whole outperforms the national average, then that school’s curriculum is enriched to meet the students where they are. State standards are a floor, not a ceiling.
This is good for the kids but not easily visible to the parents the way that placement in a gifted program is. Unfortunately, for families interested in markers of achievement, sometimes they will be unsatisfied with anything short of that letter that their child has been placed in the gifted program.
So if the school’s student body as whole outperforms the national average, then that school’s curriculum is enriched to meet the students where they are. State standards are a floor, not a ceiling.
This is good for the kids but not easily visible to the parents the way that placement in a gifted program is. Unfortunately, for families interested in markers of achievement, sometimes they will be unsatisfied with anything short of that letter that their child has been placed in the gifted program.
75th percentile is pretty mediocre when you realize how low the bar for the 50th percentile really is.
Thing is, when the mean is pushed out, the tail is pushed out too.
Sure but then isn't the outcome that the kid clearly struggles in the class and then drops back down? There's nothing wrong with that either.
There is if the parents make a big stink or if it hurts the students. Getting the students into the correct level class (in both directions!) is not entirely trivial.
There's a dark side to this pressure to perform well in all aspects - high suicide rate amongst your adults in the Palo Alto area.
see https://www.mercurynews.com/2017/03/03/cdc-report-youth-suic...
https://nextshark.com/children-of-affluent-parents-in-palo-a...
and
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/12/the-sil...
see https://www.mercurynews.com/2017/03/03/cdc-report-youth-suic...
https://nextshark.com/children-of-affluent-parents-in-palo-a...
and
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/12/the-sil...
This will be an interesting way to burn karma.
Consider that a gifted and talented program is maybe not the best option for your daughter. Not because she isn't capable. Because gifted and talented programs, especially for the very young (which it sounds like your daughter is), trade improvements in your child's strengths for exacerbating their weaknesses. Often this translates to children who have difficulty communicating with their peers no longer really being able to interact with their peers and getting the "other" label applied quite literally.
The benefit of course is that students in gifted and talented programs get inordinate amounts of money spent on them compared to their peers (class sizes of 10-15!! Individual attention from the best and most accomplished teachers!). This is an extremely hard benefit to pass up, and I don't envy you making that decision if you buy in to above (although I expect you won't, very few people I have this conversation with agree with me).
Food for thought anyways
Consider that a gifted and talented program is maybe not the best option for your daughter. Not because she isn't capable. Because gifted and talented programs, especially for the very young (which it sounds like your daughter is), trade improvements in your child's strengths for exacerbating their weaknesses. Often this translates to children who have difficulty communicating with their peers no longer really being able to interact with their peers and getting the "other" label applied quite literally.
The benefit of course is that students in gifted and talented programs get inordinate amounts of money spent on them compared to their peers (class sizes of 10-15!! Individual attention from the best and most accomplished teachers!). This is an extremely hard benefit to pass up, and I don't envy you making that decision if you buy in to above (although I expect you won't, very few people I have this conversation with agree with me).
Food for thought anyways
> Consider that a gifted and talented program is maybe not the best option for your daughter.
So is your opinion that such a program is not a good option for any student? Why not conclude instead that there should be good advanced programs, not like the ones you've seen?
> Often this translates to children who have difficulty communicating with their peers no longer really being able to interact with their peers and getting the "other" label applied quite literally.
As it is, my child is coming to the conclusion that school is boring/easy and that she is smarter than her classmates. Worst of all, she's realizing that her teachers and principal don't actually care whether she learns anything. IMO, that's worse than the picture you paint.
FWIW, I'm not looking for smaller classes at all. Her current class is 15 or 16. I'm looking for instruction that is at an appropriate level. It could be with her own class, or by having her sit with another class for math or reading. Class size is not the point; it's all about having appropriate instruction.
So is your opinion that such a program is not a good option for any student? Why not conclude instead that there should be good advanced programs, not like the ones you've seen?
> Often this translates to children who have difficulty communicating with their peers no longer really being able to interact with their peers and getting the "other" label applied quite literally.
As it is, my child is coming to the conclusion that school is boring/easy and that she is smarter than her classmates. Worst of all, she's realizing that her teachers and principal don't actually care whether she learns anything. IMO, that's worse than the picture you paint.
FWIW, I'm not looking for smaller classes at all. Her current class is 15 or 16. I'm looking for instruction that is at an appropriate level. It could be with her own class, or by having her sit with another class for math or reading. Class size is not the point; it's all about having appropriate instruction.
> As it is, my child is coming to the conclusion that school is boring/easy and that she is smarter than her classmates. Worst of all, she's realizing that her teachers and principal don't actually care whether she learns anything.
Welcome to the “parents of gifted children” club. I agree with the previous commenter that G&T probably isn’t the right place for your kid, at least not for now, although you might not have any practical alternatives.
Let’s be real though: one need not invoke resentment-laced arguments about fairness to see that public schools just do not have the resources to properly educate (upper) outliers. Pretend you had a child whose growth curve put him on track to be a future 7-footer—you might consider investing in some private basketball coaching. Different gift, same idea.
Welcome to the “parents of gifted children” club. I agree with the previous commenter that G&T probably isn’t the right place for your kid, at least not for now, although you might not have any practical alternatives.
Let’s be real though: one need not invoke resentment-laced arguments about fairness to see that public schools just do not have the resources to properly educate (upper) outliers. Pretend you had a child whose growth curve put him on track to be a future 7-footer—you might consider investing in some private basketball coaching. Different gift, same idea.
> Let’s be real though: one need not invoke resentment-laced arguments about fairness to see that public schools just do not have the resources to properly educate (upper) outliers.
Let's also be real though. This was a conscious policy decision made by school boards across the country.
G&T programs used to be what school's public and private marketed. Now the public schools where I grew up don't even offer AP classes, and a huge portion of their budget now goes to special education.
Why did we decide we have the resources to spend on the lower end of "special" scale but not the upper?
Let's also be real though. This was a conscious policy decision made by school boards across the country.
G&T programs used to be what school's public and private marketed. Now the public schools where I grew up don't even offer AP classes, and a huge portion of their budget now goes to special education.
Why did we decide we have the resources to spend on the lower end of "special" scale but not the upper?
It was the same thing when I was a kid in the 90's and I was bored out of my mind at school, completely and utterly un-challenged. I can barely even put into words how bitter I got about being dragged through such a system. There was no such thing as "advanced" classes, and the only so-called advanced stuff I ever did was outside of school in special programs, which I'm pretty sure my parents had to pay for me to participate in. It was a parent-created/run organization.
Anyway, to answer your query, my belief after decades of observing the education system here (BC, Canada) is, politicians and decision-makers basically feel that smart kids have a huge advantage and they don't need the help. They will succeed and be useful members of society whether we leave them for dead or help them thrive. So... the dollars can be allocated to "those who really need it". I have heard this overall sentiment shared over and over and over, as far back as when my parents and I attended city council meetings appealing for ANY sort of "gifted" program implementation, even a tiny hint of one. The answer was always "find a private school", "I heard there's this virtual school you can attend on the computer", "we'll think about it", etc. I honestly don't see this changing anytime soon.
I could say way more on the subject but didn't feel like posting much more of such a personal topic. Happy to chat about it more with whoever, though.
Anyway, to answer your query, my belief after decades of observing the education system here (BC, Canada) is, politicians and decision-makers basically feel that smart kids have a huge advantage and they don't need the help. They will succeed and be useful members of society whether we leave them for dead or help them thrive. So... the dollars can be allocated to "those who really need it". I have heard this overall sentiment shared over and over and over, as far back as when my parents and I attended city council meetings appealing for ANY sort of "gifted" program implementation, even a tiny hint of one. The answer was always "find a private school", "I heard there's this virtual school you can attend on the computer", "we'll think about it", etc. I honestly don't see this changing anytime soon.
I could say way more on the subject but didn't feel like posting much more of such a personal topic. Happy to chat about it more with whoever, though.
In California, “we” decided this in 2014, when the state did away with mandatory GATE requirements for districts. It’s now optional, and schools aren’t doing it.
> Worst of all, she's realizing that her teachers and principal don't actually care whether she learns anything.
If one goes through life expecting people they encounter to care about them, they'll be bitterly disappointed. Some of my teachers were nice to me, and would go out of their way to help if I asked. Did they really care about me? I doubt it. They were just good people. The rest of of my teachers were pretty indifferent. A couple actively disliked me (my own fault).
But what I wanted was not caring, but for them to do their job.
If one goes through life expecting people they encounter to care about them, they'll be bitterly disappointed. Some of my teachers were nice to me, and would go out of their way to help if I asked. Did they really care about me? I doubt it. They were just good people. The rest of of my teachers were pretty indifferent. A couple actively disliked me (my own fault).
But what I wanted was not caring, but for them to do their job.
I would say that caring whether or not their students are learning anything is a key part of the job for teachers and principals.
They are well aware of this, which is why they make a great show of caring. But do they really care? The educational results suggest the reality is they don't particularly.
More like welcome to the parents of any child club. School isn't designed to teach, it's designed to be day care. If you want special day care for your special child, it'll cost you, and may or may not be worth it. As it stands, I don't actually recall learning anything in school, or anyone really caring that I did or didn't learn anything, beyond getting me a passing grade of course.
Yeah, it's indoctrination into the 9-5 worker mindset, with a touch of "education" on the side. Parents who are concerned about their kids' all-so-important education being hampered by COVID-related school closures are seriously misled, unless they happen to have the most amazing schools on the continent. Even people I know who work in public education agree it's more daycare than actual education.
I'd definitely argue that the social isolation of not being physically in school would delay some social development, because that's largely what grade school offers imo. It's an environment for rapidly testing and experimenting with interactions between yourself and others, figuring out what works and what doesn't, resolving conflict between you and peers and older adults, forming bonds that will carry maybe into early adult years if not later ones. There's a lot of value in that, but I don't think genuinely academic learning comes until post-secondary, with the exception actually being any kind of vocational classes where you have a specific domain and framework to practice creating or doing something tangible.
> she's realizing that her teachers and principal don't actually care whether she learns anything.
So, she's starting to unschool herself (per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unschooling ). Perhaps she could use some help in that process, but it's not inherently a bad thing.
So, she's starting to unschool herself (per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unschooling ). Perhaps she could use some help in that process, but it's not inherently a bad thing.
> Worst of all, she's realizing that her teachers and principal don't actually care whether she learns anything.
She's getting good grades. They have other students who aren't. She's not in their top twenty list of priorities. That's school.
She's getting good grades. They have other students who aren't. She's not in their top twenty list of priorities. That's school.
That doesn’t explain why they don’t let her receive math instruction with a different class. The teacher is already teaching the content, my child is just not in the room.
It also doesn’t explain why she can only use the math app at her grade level or one above. They are rate limiting her.
It also doesn’t explain why she can only use the math app at her grade level or one above. They are rate limiting her.
When I was in sixth grade my parents convinced my (private) school to allow me to join the ninth/tenth grader's Geometry class. Two problems developed:
1. The material wasn't challenging; I didn't grasp what the point of "proving" a bunch of obvious stuff was, although I was willing to go through the motions. So I was an 11-year-old smart aleck in a room filled with 14 year olds who found me annoying (because, truthfully, I was super annoying at that age!). This contributed to:
2. The 14 year olds were super mean to me, AND they basically revolted against the teacher when I was in the classroom
In the end the teacher was happy to just privately tutor me, which was kind of her, but I have to acknowledge that I was genuinely disruptive to her class.
So I think there are real repercussions to allowing socially undeveloped kids into a classroom filled with kids at a very different (social) level.
There might have been a different outcome if I'd been in a school with a larger pool of moderately-to-very-gifted-at-math kids.
The next year my parents sent me to a school that had an agreement with the local university to send kids gifted at math to take university classes. The college kids were much more tolerant of me as a curiosity (and I was actually challenged, so I didn't spend my time annoying anyone, which probably helped, too).
1. The material wasn't challenging; I didn't grasp what the point of "proving" a bunch of obvious stuff was, although I was willing to go through the motions. So I was an 11-year-old smart aleck in a room filled with 14 year olds who found me annoying (because, truthfully, I was super annoying at that age!). This contributed to:
2. The 14 year olds were super mean to me, AND they basically revolted against the teacher when I was in the classroom
In the end the teacher was happy to just privately tutor me, which was kind of her, but I have to acknowledge that I was genuinely disruptive to her class.
So I think there are real repercussions to allowing socially undeveloped kids into a classroom filled with kids at a very different (social) level.
There might have been a different outcome if I'd been in a school with a larger pool of moderately-to-very-gifted-at-math kids.
The next year my parents sent me to a school that had an agreement with the local university to send kids gifted at math to take university classes. The college kids were much more tolerant of me as a curiosity (and I was actually challenged, so I didn't spend my time annoying anyone, which probably helped, too).
They don't care about her learning. It's a school, she's not being tutored. It's mostly about childcare and ranking, not learning and they know her rank. If you don't ask for an individualised education plan or otherwise show that you know the magic words that show that you are preparing evidence to sue them they're not going to do anything.
Education schools have been very clear for decades that acceleration and other accomodations for gifted students are wrong and evil.
Education schools have been very clear for decades that acceleration and other accomodations for gifted students are wrong and evil.
The point of gifted classes isn't to teach you better math. It's to separate the kids who are too nerdy to survive in the same class as normal ones or who behave too "gifted kid" all the time to keep a class on track.
If you want to be a tiger parent, do what the tiger parents do and send them to afterschool programs. (well that's what I think they do anyway.)
If you want to be a tiger parent, do what the tiger parents do and send them to afterschool programs. (well that's what I think they do anyway.)
That is definitely true but I would suggest that it is a societal choice about basic values that makes it so. I'm not saying I personally disagree with that choice but we should see it as one rather than just the obvious.
Schools could be like other institutions which focus their attention and assess themselves based on the best they produce. Even some schools are like this (or American schools anyway) with sports. Is Coach worrying about how good the average student is at basketball, or the lowest quartile? I think not.
We have decided that it is essential that everyone reaches a minimum level, that the average performance should reach a certain level and that these two things are very important and much more so than making sure that the very best students can reach their maximum level.
Again, I'm not saying I think that is wrong. In a democracy, it has a lot going for it, but it isn't the only way to run a society either.
Schools could be like other institutions which focus their attention and assess themselves based on the best they produce. Even some schools are like this (or American schools anyway) with sports. Is Coach worrying about how good the average student is at basketball, or the lowest quartile? I think not.
We have decided that it is essential that everyone reaches a minimum level, that the average performance should reach a certain level and that these two things are very important and much more so than making sure that the very best students can reach their maximum level.
Again, I'm not saying I think that is wrong. In a democracy, it has a lot going for it, but it isn't the only way to run a society either.
> As it is, my child is coming to the conclusion that school is boring/easy and that she is smarter than her classmates.
Both of those things are objectively true, so this is a fine conclusion.
> Worst of all, she's realizing that her teachers and principal don't actually care whether she learns anything.
This is also true.
Perhaps you could look at getting her private tutoring and making peace with the fact that school is mostly for socialising. Modern schooling is primarily about beating you into the shape that bureaucratic life demands of you, so in essence the impression she is getting now is one she will probably have her entire life.
Both of those things are objectively true, so this is a fine conclusion.
> Worst of all, she's realizing that her teachers and principal don't actually care whether she learns anything.
This is also true.
Perhaps you could look at getting her private tutoring and making peace with the fact that school is mostly for socialising. Modern schooling is primarily about beating you into the shape that bureaucratic life demands of you, so in essence the impression she is getting now is one she will probably have her entire life.
I was in G&T programs and ended up skipping multiple grades and going to specialized schools for a few years. I was also a colossal asshole and a behavior problem so my story wont be an exact parallel.
The trade-off was worth it. But my teachers did care, they campaigned for some solution to what they saw as bad behavior from being bored and unchallenged. It did create authority problems to see the Teachers one was supposed to respect stutter on with easy problems and to see your peers having trouble spelling basic words, it was ok to be "other" from that. Early social life doesn't have to be tied to a classroom, I got that from neighborhood friends, athletics church and family. There is no excuse to having your young child wasting the opportunity of her headstart by following the same path as the other kids.
Once you are out of early ed, the honors and AP classes should provide enough challenges, it would be unusual for her to excel in every topic.
I didn't have any particular academic or career excellence other than the path I described there, turns out I just read fast and had tested out of standardized reading levels by the "third" grade but if someone hadn't intervened and noticed that I wasn't mean spirited, I just had read the whole book in the time the rest were reading three pages and now had nothing to do, I would have had a way different feeling about learning and likely would have ended up in alternative schools for being an authority issue.
Most kids in G&T programs even out with others academically over time, there is no reason to waste the younger years where she is showing advanced aptitude
The trade-off was worth it. But my teachers did care, they campaigned for some solution to what they saw as bad behavior from being bored and unchallenged. It did create authority problems to see the Teachers one was supposed to respect stutter on with easy problems and to see your peers having trouble spelling basic words, it was ok to be "other" from that. Early social life doesn't have to be tied to a classroom, I got that from neighborhood friends, athletics church and family. There is no excuse to having your young child wasting the opportunity of her headstart by following the same path as the other kids.
Once you are out of early ed, the honors and AP classes should provide enough challenges, it would be unusual for her to excel in every topic.
I didn't have any particular academic or career excellence other than the path I described there, turns out I just read fast and had tested out of standardized reading levels by the "third" grade but if someone hadn't intervened and noticed that I wasn't mean spirited, I just had read the whole book in the time the rest were reading three pages and now had nothing to do, I would have had a way different feeling about learning and likely would have ended up in alternative schools for being an authority issue.
Most kids in G&T programs even out with others academically over time, there is no reason to waste the younger years where she is showing advanced aptitude
> So is your opinion that such a program is not a good option for any student?
It is extremely hard to draw such broad conclusions. I do think on the whole G&T programs are a net negative- if only because they have drained so many resources from the vast majority of students. I think there is a reasonable middle ground to be had somewhere.
> Why not conclude instead that there should be good advanced programs, not like the ones you've seen?
I have seen quite a few advanced programs and I can attach various adjectives to them, and I think some were objectively good from the standard measure. I think the entire concept is flawed in a fundamental way though. All children will benefit from small class sizes, individualized lesson plans, encouragement to pursue their passions, etc etc. Its heartbreaking that we offer those services primarily to children who are academically exceptional.
> As it is, my child is coming to the conclusion that school is boring/easy and that she is smarter than her classmates
This is certainly a struggle. Do keep in mind that your daughter will take your cues to heart in how you interact with her schooling. Finding the challenge in the mundane is a skill I did not develop until I was much too old to take advantage of it.
> Worst of all, she's realizing that her teachers and principal don't actually care whether she learns anything. IMO, that's worse than the picture you paint.
Thats certainly not a good situation. I wish you the best of luck in addressing it however you deem best. As I concede above, its hard to paint with broad strokes; every child is different and will respond differently to identical situations.
It is extremely hard to draw such broad conclusions. I do think on the whole G&T programs are a net negative- if only because they have drained so many resources from the vast majority of students. I think there is a reasonable middle ground to be had somewhere.
> Why not conclude instead that there should be good advanced programs, not like the ones you've seen?
I have seen quite a few advanced programs and I can attach various adjectives to them, and I think some were objectively good from the standard measure. I think the entire concept is flawed in a fundamental way though. All children will benefit from small class sizes, individualized lesson plans, encouragement to pursue their passions, etc etc. Its heartbreaking that we offer those services primarily to children who are academically exceptional.
> As it is, my child is coming to the conclusion that school is boring/easy and that she is smarter than her classmates
This is certainly a struggle. Do keep in mind that your daughter will take your cues to heart in how you interact with her schooling. Finding the challenge in the mundane is a skill I did not develop until I was much too old to take advantage of it.
> Worst of all, she's realizing that her teachers and principal don't actually care whether she learns anything. IMO, that's worse than the picture you paint.
Thats certainly not a good situation. I wish you the best of luck in addressing it however you deem best. As I concede above, its hard to paint with broad strokes; every child is different and will respond differently to identical situations.
> All children will benefit from small class sizes, individualized lesson plans, encouragement to pursue their passions, etc etc.
Class size has nothing to do with it. As I've mentioned above multiple times, this is not what we are after. It is also not necessarily something that these programs offer; the program I was in 30 years ago did not have small class sizes.
Equally important, evidence does not strongly support the theory that smaller class sizes improve performance. Most of the studies show no benefit or a small benefit but only for certain types of students (white/Asian, not URM).
Similarly, we're not looking for individualized lesson plans. Just let her do the regular math for a different grade level. No customization needed. I realize that would require matching up 'math time' for her class and another class, but this is a school with 7 classes per grade. There are many ways to make this happen (for her and for other students who could also benefit from above-grade-level instruction).
> I do think on the whole G&T programs are a net negative- if only because they have drained so many resources from the vast majority of students.
> Its heartbreaking that we offer those services primarily to children who are academically exceptional.
I'm curious where you're getting your numbers from. I work in education technology, and the common wisdom is that tons of money is spent on Title I schools and special education. I have literally never heard anyone claim that GATE is a lucrative market.
Class size has nothing to do with it. As I've mentioned above multiple times, this is not what we are after. It is also not necessarily something that these programs offer; the program I was in 30 years ago did not have small class sizes.
Equally important, evidence does not strongly support the theory that smaller class sizes improve performance. Most of the studies show no benefit or a small benefit but only for certain types of students (white/Asian, not URM).
Similarly, we're not looking for individualized lesson plans. Just let her do the regular math for a different grade level. No customization needed. I realize that would require matching up 'math time' for her class and another class, but this is a school with 7 classes per grade. There are many ways to make this happen (for her and for other students who could also benefit from above-grade-level instruction).
> I do think on the whole G&T programs are a net negative- if only because they have drained so many resources from the vast majority of students.
> Its heartbreaking that we offer those services primarily to children who are academically exceptional.
I'm curious where you're getting your numbers from. I work in education technology, and the common wisdom is that tons of money is spent on Title I schools and special education. I have literally never heard anyone claim that GATE is a lucrative market.
Re spending: Every advanced class I was in had
1) a lower student to teacher ratio 2) better, newer equipment 3) better, more experienced teachers
I've never talked to someone who didn't admit to those advantages, only argued about how important they were or how expensive they might be. I can imagine it isn't a cash cow for the industry because the number of students is small and most of the difference is in teacher pay per child.
Re snap class sizes having an effect on outcomes. This is extremely surprising to me. The last I looked (admittedly quite some time ago) it was essentially the only factor that has significant weight and was reproducible.
1) a lower student to teacher ratio 2) better, newer equipment 3) better, more experienced teachers
I've never talked to someone who didn't admit to those advantages, only argued about how important they were or how expensive they might be. I can imagine it isn't a cash cow for the industry because the number of students is small and most of the difference is in teacher pay per child.
Re snap class sizes having an effect on outcomes. This is extremely surprising to me. The last I looked (admittedly quite some time ago) it was essentially the only factor that has significant weight and was reproducible.
> better, more experienced teachers
Well, you will need teachers who have mastered algebra themselves. Other than that, I don't see why they need to be better or more experienced.
The profs I had in college were never trained as teachers, nor were they particularly experienced at it. But they knew the material to the point that it was trivial for them.
Well, you will need teachers who have mastered algebra themselves. Other than that, I don't see why they need to be better or more experienced.
The profs I had in college were never trained as teachers, nor were they particularly experienced at it. But they knew the material to the point that it was trivial for them.
> But they knew the material to the point that it was trivial for them
On the flipside this can make it harder for the teacher to relate to the students. In a university context of course, students have each other as equals.
On the flipside this can make it harder for the teacher to relate to the students. In a university context of course, students have each other as equals.
> I'm curious where you're getting your numbers from. I work in education technology, and the common wisdom is that tons of money is spent on Title I schools and special education. I have literally never heard anyone claim that GATE is a lucrative market.
I went to a magnet school for high school. While we did have a decent amount of swanky equipment for labs, that was pretty much all donated or begged off of companies. That does comport with your tales that GT isn't particularly graced with extra funding.
I went to a magnet school for high school. While we did have a decent amount of swanky equipment for labs, that was pretty much all donated or begged off of companies. That does comport with your tales that GT isn't particularly graced with extra funding.
Swanky equipment is entirely unnecessary for GT instruction. All that is needed is a teacher and a blackboard.
> Its heartbreaking that we offer those services primarily to children who are academically exceptional.
It is far more heartbreaking seeing those resources wasted on the comparatively incapable. You can bring a student to math, but you can't make him/her learn. Moreover it guts both our national competitiveness and eschews meritocracy in favor of classism, where the have's can privately acquire those services.
It is far more heartbreaking seeing those resources wasted on the comparatively incapable. You can bring a student to math, but you can't make him/her learn. Moreover it guts both our national competitiveness and eschews meritocracy in favor of classism, where the have's can privately acquire those services.
I was once hired to photograph a teacher for a magazine or the like. It was a music class at about the 3rd grade level. There was a student in the class that clearly had no idea what was going on and just moaned the entire time. They had an aide that stayed with them the entire time and presumably the entire day.
I understand that as a parent you’d want to do what you can for your child to give them a normal experience. I’d probably do the same in their shoes. As a society we should probably place limits on that. As far as I could tell he was one step above “vegetable” and gained nothing from the experience and it took an insane amount of potential resources away from the rest of the students.
I understand that as a parent you’d want to do what you can for your child to give them a normal experience. I’d probably do the same in their shoes. As a society we should probably place limits on that. As far as I could tell he was one step above “vegetable” and gained nothing from the experience and it took an insane amount of potential resources away from the rest of the students.
> All children will benefit from small class sizes, individualized lesson plans, encouragement to pursue their passions, etc etc.
You don't need any of that for a gifted program. You just need to teach more advanced material, and at a faster pace. There's no reason whatsoever it should cost more.
Heck, my freshman physics class in college had 150 students in it. It blew by high school honors physics in 3 or 4 lectures. I learned a crap ton in it. It was terrifying, but also exhilarating.
You don't need any of that for a gifted program. You just need to teach more advanced material, and at a faster pace. There's no reason whatsoever it should cost more.
Heck, my freshman physics class in college had 150 students in it. It blew by high school honors physics in 3 or 4 lectures. I learned a crap ton in it. It was terrifying, but also exhilarating.
Well, perhaps this is true. I wonder how well it would work in a k-8 setting. I've never seen it implemented there like that.
Edit: I can think of a situation where I attended a different grade's math class. That was completely separate from the g&t program at the school, and I simply haven't considered it as part of that.
Edit: I can think of a situation where I attended a different grade's math class. That was completely separate from the g&t program at the school, and I simply haven't considered it as part of that.
I understand that k-8 is different, I was just pointing out that small class size is not necessarily correlated with quality teaching. This is especially true as the kids mature.
I also doubt that it is even possible to reliably detect a gifted student before 3rd grade.
And lastly, a gifted program can be little more than just giving the 3rd grade gifted students the 4th grade curriculum. No extra money required. No magical teaching required.
I also doubt that it is even possible to reliably detect a gifted student before 3rd grade.
And lastly, a gifted program can be little more than just giving the 3rd grade gifted students the 4th grade curriculum. No extra money required. No magical teaching required.
I think perhaps we are in (majority) agreement. My primary point is that g&t programs in the k-8 range don't look anything like what you describe. What you describe also happens, its just not called a gifted and talented program (at least in my experience).
If I hadn't had gifted classes to keep me intellectually stimulated, I probably would've been lighting things on fire during class in elementary school. I guess I would've found "the challenge in the mundane", but it most likely would've been through destructive and antisocial behavior.
I don't recall we even needed a lot of resources or personal attention or special student/teacher ratios in gifted class--they just set us loose with computers and told us to write logo programs (it was the early 90s), instead of being stuck in regular class trying to figure out how to cut myself so I could feel something other than bored.
I would've ended up getting a phd with or without gifted classes--I didn't need it to get a jump start on career success or something like that. I needed it to keep me sane.
I don't recall we even needed a lot of resources or personal attention or special student/teacher ratios in gifted class--they just set us loose with computers and told us to write logo programs (it was the early 90s), instead of being stuck in regular class trying to figure out how to cut myself so I could feel something other than bored.
I would've ended up getting a phd with or without gifted classes--I didn't need it to get a jump start on career success or something like that. I needed it to keep me sane.
>> As it is, my child is coming to the conclusion that school is boring/easy
And she may feel that way even in gifted classes, I know I did. There's only so much that teachers can do. If it's so easy then she can spend her time doing/studying other things that she likes.
I read all the feynman lectures in middle school classes (ymmv with teachers). Later I got into quantem mechanics and advanced math, all on my own and because I had a bunch of free time..
Those were some of my favorite years and shaped who I am today. There's plenty to learn beyond the school curriculum and your child can self direct it
And she may feel that way even in gifted classes, I know I did. There's only so much that teachers can do. If it's so easy then she can spend her time doing/studying other things that she likes.
I read all the feynman lectures in middle school classes (ymmv with teachers). Later I got into quantem mechanics and advanced math, all on my own and because I had a bunch of free time..
Those were some of my favorite years and shaped who I am today. There's plenty to learn beyond the school curriculum and your child can self direct it
People forget in the 8-12 year old range kids have their own ideas about things. Kids understand a lot and perceive when adults don't care about what is good for them at some level.
Can you provide any evidence that G&T programmes exacerbate weaknesses?
The idea that G&T programmes get inordinate resources doesn't bear any relationship to reality. Most school dsitricts don't have such programmes at all. Every single school district in the US has special needs teachers, assistants and ELL support. Most of them have no support of any kind for gifted students.
The idea that G&T programmes get inordinate resources doesn't bear any relationship to reality. Most school dsitricts don't have such programmes at all. Every single school district in the US has special needs teachers, assistants and ELL support. Most of them have no support of any kind for gifted students.
> Can you provide any evidence that G&T programmes exacerbate weaknesses?
None at all other than anecdotal.
> Most school dsitricts don't have such programmes at all
This doesn't jive with my experience where literally every school I attended had some sort of program (and I attended quite a few schools growing up- more than grades). Often in single district areas too where it wasn't possible for my parents to have chosen the right school. A quick google search reveals 6% of schools are enrolled in the national gifted and talented program. Perhaps that is your definition? I imagine it is far too narrow a criteria and that plenty of schools offer special classes for a small minority of their students.
None at all other than anecdotal.
> Most school dsitricts don't have such programmes at all
This doesn't jive with my experience where literally every school I attended had some sort of program (and I attended quite a few schools growing up- more than grades). Often in single district areas too where it wasn't possible for my parents to have chosen the right school. A quick google search reveals 6% of schools are enrolled in the national gifted and talented program. Perhaps that is your definition? I imagine it is far too narrow a criteria and that plenty of schools offer special classes for a small minority of their students.
If 6% of schools have a G&T programme surely that proves a tiny minority of students are enrolled? It's not like honors or AP classes are targeted at top 10% or 5% students.
In my school district, not every school had a GT program; if your base school didn't have one, you'd be instead bused to the nearest GT program. You'll need to compare school districts or (better yet) student populations, rather than merely schools, to get a better estimate.
Thats the "official" G&T program statistic. I don't know anything about the requirements to be on that list, but perhaps it is onerous? My claim (unsupported) is there are plenty of schools that run G&T programs that are not on that list of 6% that, if counted, would raise the percent dramatically- perhaps to the 75% level? I don't know.
> My claim (unsupported) is there are plenty of schools that run G&T programs that are not on that list of 6% that, if counted, would raise the percent dramatically- perhaps to the 75% level?
Unless you count AP or honors programmes as G&T this isn't remotely close to being true.
Unless you count AP or honors programmes as G&T this isn't remotely close to being true.
> None at all other than anecdotal.
I doubt you even have anecdotal evidence.
I doubt you even have anecdotal evidence.
An opinion from the other end: In 1st grade (7-8 years old), I tested out of my grade and was able to go into the gifted program. My parents gave me the choice instead of choosing for me, and I chose not to because I had just made some of my first school friends and didn't want to leave them.
It's been well over two decades, and for almost all of that I've regretted the choice.
In addition to not getting the academic boost the gifted program might've given me, socialization with general-age peers didn't really help; I remained the odd one out for pretty much all of my school years, it was only come college that that really changed.
It's been well over two decades, and for almost all of that I've regretted the choice.
In addition to not getting the academic boost the gifted program might've given me, socialization with general-age peers didn't really help; I remained the odd one out for pretty much all of my school years, it was only come college that that really changed.
I had a similar experience but I don’t really regret choosing not to skip grades. I didn’t really bloom socially until I hit university either but I think being a 14 year-old freshman would have probably changed how that played out.
Just a side note that mine wasn't about skipping grades, it was a gifted program with other kids my own age. No idea how it would've played out years down the line, but that was how it worked early on where I was.
I was in gifted programs and honestly it was more to have a space where I was allowed to read and learn what I wanted. I actually learned from being in 'normal' classes and having parents who encouraged me to explain the lessons to my friends when they struggled. I learned how to teach in a way that was friendly and kind to my peers, and I understood the materials after at a deeper level too. I did tutoring and standardized test coaching in middle and high school which gave me both some extra cash and confidence in my knowledge.
Those skills I learned at a young age are in constant use. Absolutely invaluable.
This should definitely be done for sport.
Even as far as US College teams the team shouldn't just be composed of really good players. There should also be randomly selected college students in the team.
It's probably a good idea for music too. Too many bands are composed of just talented musicians and very attractive people. It should be blended.
Even as far as US College teams the team shouldn't just be composed of really good players. There should also be randomly selected college students in the team.
It's probably a good idea for music too. Too many bands are composed of just talented musicians and very attractive people. It should be blended.
Heh, I'll bite.
> Even as far as US College teams the team shouldn't just be composed of really good players. There should also be randomly selected college students in the team.
This depends on your goals. Are you trying to build the best single team you can? Or are you trying to build the best repository of skill in that sport in the population at large? Or maybe something else? I bet you'd construct different team compositions depending on how you answer those questions. Ditto for the musicians.
> Even as far as US College teams the team shouldn't just be composed of really good players. There should also be randomly selected college students in the team.
This depends on your goals. Are you trying to build the best single team you can? Or are you trying to build the best repository of skill in that sport in the population at large? Or maybe something else? I bet you'd construct different team compositions depending on how you answer those questions. Ditto for the musicians.
How are the rest of the band meant to practice when the drummer can't hold time?
How often do you think the weak player will receive a pass in the sports team?
How do you think it feels for the weaker members to be always holding up the others? What does that do for their self confidence, or their long term development of skills?
How often do you think the weak player will receive a pass in the sports team?
How do you think it feels for the weaker members to be always holding up the others? What does that do for their self confidence, or their long term development of skills?
> no longer really being able to interact with their peers
No, wait. It's the other way around. Her peers are in the gifted and talented program, not outside it.
No, wait. It's the other way around. Her peers are in the gifted and talented program, not outside it.
I gotta agree, I clicked so damn well with the kids in any "gifted" program I ever partook in. Some of them were super socially-awkward, but I didn't care because they were super smart and loved to discuss super complex, deep subjects, at length. I learned from them and they learned from me. This just simply didn't happen in any normal school setting, whatsoever. Unfortunately all of those experiences were indeed outside of school, extracurricular stuff. If actual normal school had been like that, I may have actually liked school!
Yeah, I hear this a lot, and I heard this as a child. Maybe there's real data indicating this is the normal outcome, I don't know. But I do know that in my personal experience, nothing was better for my social growth than skipping grades. My favorite theory is that being a weird kid is easier when you also have a sympathy card by also being younger than everyone. Like everyone sort of gave me a break? I'm not sure, but it was great for me, way better than being in normal school with kids my age.
My experience is consistent with this, but I hope not representative.
When I was a kid I was pretty far ahead in some areas, but behind socially, and participated in some programs and activities for gifted kids. The kids in those programs were some of the most socially and emotionally maladjusted people I've ever had the misfortune of meeting. Maybe I was just in those places because I was also maladjusted, and other gifted programs aren't like that.
Here's hoping.
When I was a kid I was pretty far ahead in some areas, but behind socially, and participated in some programs and activities for gifted kids. The kids in those programs were some of the most socially and emotionally maladjusted people I've ever had the misfortune of meeting. Maybe I was just in those places because I was also maladjusted, and other gifted programs aren't like that.
Here's hoping.
Often this translates to children who have difficulty communicating with their peers no longer really being able to interact with their peers and getting the "other" label applied quite literally.
I'm not sure that's the fault of such programs, I had that label applied without needing a special program.
I'm not sure that's the fault of such programs, I had that label applied without needing a special program.
so the alternatives are: A. lifetime benefits from being challenged up to their real potential during their most-formative years, versus alternative B. being cooler for a few years during puberty when being different is a bad thing.
"being cooler" is a really disingenuous way to phrase the upside benefit. It would be as if I said "so you have to take into calc in college. What a bummer!" to sum up the advantages of the g&t program
That sounds to me like you're conceding it is true but you just don't like the way I worded it. Which is horrifying.
But are you saying they don't even want to offer calculus in high school now? Holy crap, that is also horrifying.
But are you saying they don't even want to offer calculus in high school now? Holy crap, that is also horrifying.
I can't pull it up but there's been studies on how much you accelerate a child's IQ and their life outcome. Not accelerating leads to depression, suicide, and drug abuse.
Have you heard of https://www.davidsongifted.org/ ? They will help lobby the school system, or help you find other resources. And also get your kid connected with other kids that are intellectual peers as well as age peers. Also, for math specifically, check out https://artofproblemsolving.com/
We eventually home-schooled. At some point, you look at all the time you spend lobbying school administrators and selling band candy, and decide it takes less time to just home school.
We eventually home-schooled. At some point, you look at all the time you spend lobbying school administrators and selling band candy, and decide it takes less time to just home school.
Re AOPS: their online “beast academy” service for primary kids is unbelievably good. https://beastacademy.com/
We've heard good things about AOPS, but haven't heard of Davidson Gifted. Will definitely check that out, thanks!
Just wanted to add my recommendation for checking into Davidson as well.
They offered a summer academy that hopefully will start back up again after covid and also have an online program that may be a good alternative to full home-schooling if you were considering going that route.
Update: Beast Academy is wonderful. AOPS is great too. Both very good suggestions. Your daughter may also like the math content produced by Poh Shen Loh [1].
1. https://www.poshenloh.com/
They offered a summer academy that hopefully will start back up again after covid and also have an online program that may be a good alternative to full home-schooling if you were considering going that route.
Update: Beast Academy is wonderful. AOPS is great too. Both very good suggestions. Your daughter may also like the math content produced by Poh Shen Loh [1].
1. https://www.poshenloh.com/
It seems you would be far better served by something like Beast Academy [0] or Singapore Math [1].
A gifted and talented program generally just accelerates the core curriculum (i.e. teaches a grade ahead). Art of Problem Solving [2] has a compelling argument [3] against acceleration:
----
“For an avid student with great skill in mathematics, rushing through the standard curriculum is not the best answer. That student who breezed unchallenged through algebra, geometry, and trigonometry, will breeze through calculus, too. This is not to say that high school students should not learn calculus—they should. But more importantly, the gifted, interested student should be exposed to mathematics outside the core curriculum, because the standard curriculum is not designed for the top students. This is even, if not especially, true for the core calculus curriculum found at most high schools, community colleges, and universities.
Developing a broader understanding of mathematics and problem solving forms a foundation upon which knowledge of advanced mathematical and scientific concepts can be built. Curricular classes do not prepare students for the leap from the usual one-step-and-done problems to the multi-step, multi-discipline problems they will face later on. That transition is smoothed by exposing students to complex problems in simpler areas of study, such as basic number theory or geometry, rather than giving them their first taste of complicated arguments when they’re learning a more advanced subject like group -theory or the calculus of complex variables.”
----
[0] https://beastacademy.com/
[1] https://www.singaporemath.com/
[2] https://artofproblemsolving.com/
[3] https://artofproblemsolving.com/news/articles/avoid-the-calc...
A gifted and talented program generally just accelerates the core curriculum (i.e. teaches a grade ahead). Art of Problem Solving [2] has a compelling argument [3] against acceleration:
----
“For an avid student with great skill in mathematics, rushing through the standard curriculum is not the best answer. That student who breezed unchallenged through algebra, geometry, and trigonometry, will breeze through calculus, too. This is not to say that high school students should not learn calculus—they should. But more importantly, the gifted, interested student should be exposed to mathematics outside the core curriculum, because the standard curriculum is not designed for the top students. This is even, if not especially, true for the core calculus curriculum found at most high schools, community colleges, and universities.
Developing a broader understanding of mathematics and problem solving forms a foundation upon which knowledge of advanced mathematical and scientific concepts can be built. Curricular classes do not prepare students for the leap from the usual one-step-and-done problems to the multi-step, multi-discipline problems they will face later on. That transition is smoothed by exposing students to complex problems in simpler areas of study, such as basic number theory or geometry, rather than giving them their first taste of complicated arguments when they’re learning a more advanced subject like group -theory or the calculus of complex variables.”
----
[0] https://beastacademy.com/
[1] https://www.singaporemath.com/
[2] https://artofproblemsolving.com/
[3] https://artofproblemsolving.com/news/articles/avoid-the-calc...
This is sooo very true. I had an experimental math curriculum in the 6th grade that had special sections in the book that covered (in an age adjusted way) things like axiomatic definitions of numbers, extending the field of integers to rationals, limit sequences as definitions for real quantities, fields and rings and some other topics. I was sooo revved about that class and so bummed when the next school thought math meant doing sets of 50 long division problems each night.
But the excitement didn't die off. I had a great 8th grade math teacher who noticed that I did all of the exercises in the book during the first two weeks of class and diverted me into a more advanced class (algebra) and eventually got me into correspondence courses (trig and geometry) and late in the same year into the high school calculus class. By finishing calculus that year, I was able to branch into languages and other topics.
Branching out early is a great motivator for the right kids. More interesting material can lead to explosive levels of interest in kids.
But the excitement didn't die off. I had a great 8th grade math teacher who noticed that I did all of the exercises in the book during the first two weeks of class and diverted me into a more advanced class (algebra) and eventually got me into correspondence courses (trig and geometry) and late in the same year into the high school calculus class. By finishing calculus that year, I was able to branch into languages and other topics.
Branching out early is a great motivator for the right kids. More interesting material can lead to explosive levels of interest in kids.
The parent comment is exactly spot on. Those are exactly the right resources. If you are working with a gifted math student, 100% bookmark it and follow up soon. AoPS has a ton of excellent books for coursework and also just deeper problem solving (billed as competition problems).
In fact, even if you do not have a "gifted" youngster, learning to work on harder problems is so much better than learning to follow instructions by rote. Not to say all teaching is that way, but it seems like a majority.
Another resource is MOEMS, the Math Olympiads for Elementary and Middle Schools. They are totally reasonable and also fascinating problems. Get one of the books and check it out if you are working with someone in the late elementary.
[0] https://moems.org/
In fact, even if you do not have a "gifted" youngster, learning to work on harder problems is so much better than learning to follow instructions by rote. Not to say all teaching is that way, but it seems like a majority.
Another resource is MOEMS, the Math Olympiads for Elementary and Middle Schools. They are totally reasonable and also fascinating problems. Get one of the books and check it out if you are working with someone in the late elementary.
[0] https://moems.org/
Actually good rich public school district not having gifted program is a feature not a bug. If you have money and kid in 70-95% IQ percentile (typical for upper middle class) you can buy a house in Palo Alto, Short Hill or other rich suburb, send kid to school and not worry about gifted tests, school selection, lottery. Your kid will be fine with motivated students, etc. There will be dumb kids but overall class mix is really good (bottom 25% kid in Palo Alto is 80% percentile nationally).
The moment you introduce gifted program magic disappears and all “dumb” kids are in non gifted program with ambitious parents worrying about tests, everyone prepping for tests for 5 year old kids, etc.
District like Redwood City has much broader range of kids (from working class to rich techies) and gifted program is the only way to accommodate the range of abilities. In many districts gifted programs are very comparable to regular programs in good schools districts and is veiled attempt to keep white parents send kids to otherwise failing school.
The moment you introduce gifted program magic disappears and all “dumb” kids are in non gifted program with ambitious parents worrying about tests, everyone prepping for tests for 5 year old kids, etc.
District like Redwood City has much broader range of kids (from working class to rich techies) and gifted program is the only way to accommodate the range of abilities. In many districts gifted programs are very comparable to regular programs in good schools districts and is veiled attempt to keep white parents send kids to otherwise failing school.
It's not just about having a gifted program. They could do a great job accommodating these kids without a formal program, just by assessing kids and providing appropriately challenging curriculum. They just choose not to. They don't want to assess kids because they don't want to know what their true reading/math levels actually are.
And the 'common wisdom' that was passed to me by many other parents and district leaders is that advanced kids should maybe go to private schools. This is not the sign of a district that embraces a student body that skews advanced.
And the 'common wisdom' that was passed to me by many other parents and district leaders is that advanced kids should maybe go to private schools. This is not the sign of a district that embraces a student body that skews advanced.
It gets worse when you leave the bay. There are states where they don't believe in the concept of kids being mentally gifted but they'll bend over backward to talk up their gifted athletic programs. You can be super good at dribbling and be valuable but good at math is just training... uhuh... Okay...
If she is that advanced you can probably get significant financial aid.
When I was in first grade, the public school I was attending told my parents they didn't have the resources to teach me at the pace I was learning and recommended that my parents tried to enroll me in a private school.
The private school I ended up attending had me go through an assortment of tests and at the end I placed well enough on them that my parents were given significant financial aid.
When I was in first grade, the public school I was attending told my parents they didn't have the resources to teach me at the pace I was learning and recommended that my parents tried to enroll me in a private school.
The private school I ended up attending had me go through an assortment of tests and at the end I placed well enough on them that my parents were given significant financial aid.
Welcome to the type of discrimination everyone is okay with. I'm saddened to hear of your difficulties, but it sounds about par for the course given my life experience.
The fact is, it's extremely difficult to find people who are cutting edge teachers of young minds. You can get them advanced course material and work with your child as long as your mind can keep up, but when it comes to outsourcing it or finding a mentor for pedagogy, if you don't know somebody, all you can really do is do the footwork, network, and pray to cross paths with someone who fits the bill.
The curse of course being that someone with advanced understanding isn't actually who you are looking for, but someone exceptionally good at teaching how to build understanding of complex topics. Those people will be in high demand, everyone will claim to be one, and a bad choice on your part distinguishing the frauds from the real thing could do much more harm than good.
Good luck. If it were me, I'd just try to get in as much extracurricular time as possible, or network with the type of people who could help, which you're already doing; so...
The fact is, it's extremely difficult to find people who are cutting edge teachers of young minds. You can get them advanced course material and work with your child as long as your mind can keep up, but when it comes to outsourcing it or finding a mentor for pedagogy, if you don't know somebody, all you can really do is do the footwork, network, and pray to cross paths with someone who fits the bill.
The curse of course being that someone with advanced understanding isn't actually who you are looking for, but someone exceptionally good at teaching how to build understanding of complex topics. Those people will be in high demand, everyone will claim to be one, and a bad choice on your part distinguishing the frauds from the real thing could do much more harm than good.
Good luck. If it were me, I'd just try to get in as much extracurricular time as possible, or network with the type of people who could help, which you're already doing; so...
California used to have a better funded GATE (gifted and talented education) program - like maybe in the 70’s - but like much infrastructural social investment in America - it has undergone long term atrophy of decades.
I don't think it's decades of atrophy. In 2014 the state simply got rid of the GATE requirement. Districts abandoned their programs in droves after that. It was much more binary than a decades-long decay.
I had gate identified kids before that and at that time, the gate identification was still working, but any actual programs had atrophied to one day supplemental activities once or twice a year. Maybe a decade before that, there were entire classes of gate identified kids being taught by full time teachers.
Our son scored well, but we were told the district looks for students scoring 3 to 4 standard deviations above the mean. That's about 3 students per ten thousand.
We'll find other ways to challenge him.
We'll find other ways to challenge him.
[deleted]
Get an online tutor. Now that covid has happened they are all online. I have my kid tutored by someone in Australia despite being in the UK. He also has a local guy teach him extra math via video. Algebra, that kind of thing that is ahead of his year.
Shouldn't be too hard to find someone wanting to teach an advanced kid.
Shouldn't be too hard to find someone wanting to teach an advanced kid.
Don't miss https://www.mathacademy.us by Jason Roberts of the https://techzinglive.com podcast, begun with the Pasadena public school system.
Find a good private school, sell the house. It's nice to be a paying customer with that leverage and choice again.
> But all of their "assessments" are closed-ended, which means she cannot actually demonstrate her proficiency level.
Closed-ended testing is standard for Gifted and Talented programs throughout the country. Are you saying that she did not meet the requirements using those tests?
Closed-ended testing is standard for Gifted and Talented programs throughout the country. Are you saying that she did not meet the requirements using those tests?
Gifted programs in public schools are typically aimed at moderately gifted students in the 115 to 130 IQ range. A child who is either above that IQ generally or especially talented in a particular area tends to not be adequately accommodated by public school gifted programs.
To make matters worse, it's quite common for very gifted students to also have issues like ADHD or OCD, which qualifies them for a label of twice exceptional. When I was raising my now adult sons, schools typically wanted to label a child either gifted or special needs and often seemed incapable of comprehending that a child could be both.
I ended up homeschooling and as a consequence I was involved with an online voluntary health and welfare organization for the gifted. My impression was that it was pretty common for people with very gifted or twice exceptional children to homeschool due to frustration with how schools handle such students.
They need custom help that few people are qualified to adequately provide.
Edited because: autocorrupt.
To make matters worse, it's quite common for very gifted students to also have issues like ADHD or OCD, which qualifies them for a label of twice exceptional. When I was raising my now adult sons, schools typically wanted to label a child either gifted or special needs and often seemed incapable of comprehending that a child could be both.
I ended up homeschooling and as a consequence I was involved with an online voluntary health and welfare organization for the gifted. My impression was that it was pretty common for people with very gifted or twice exceptional children to homeschool due to frustration with how schools handle such students.
They need custom help that few people are qualified to adequately provide.
Edited because: autocorrupt.
>Edited because: autocorrupt
I'm going to have to steal this one. It gave me a big chuckle!
I'm going to have to steal this one. It gave me a big chuckle!
Sorry if I'm not using the terminology correctly. What I was trying to say was that they asked almost entirely addition and subtraction questions and then decided that she was just above grade level. If they had asked questions about fractions, multiplication, division, or geometry, they would have discovered she is well above grade level.
They did the same thing with reading: don't give a student the chance to show higher proficiency, and you effectively cap the level a student can be 'assessed' at.
They did the same thing with reading: don't give a student the chance to show higher proficiency, and you effectively cap the level a student can be 'assessed' at.
It’s probably worth going somewhere specifically for testing giftedness so you can see if your child (on that day) is more likely gifted, highly gifted, profoundly gifted, etc. Also it can be helpful to find out if there’s other 2E (twice exceptional) things at play such as ADHD, etc.
We took our kiddo on a trip to Colorado to the Gifted Development Center which was a good helpful first step (and connected a lot of dots for us). More than happy to share experiences at matt at mindvault dot com.
We took our kiddo on a trip to Colorado to the Gifted Development Center which was a good helpful first step (and connected a lot of dots for us). More than happy to share experiences at matt at mindvault dot com.
> Getting any sort of advanced instruction for our daughter has been like pulling teeth.
'A' people teach 'A' people, 'B' people teach 'C' people. 'D' people teach 'F' people. Just do the math.
'A' people teach 'A' people, 'B' people teach 'C' people. 'D' people teach 'F' people. Just do the math.
Except at this end of the spectrum, it’s more like ‘A’ people teaching ‘A++++’ people. The average teacher might encounter only a handful of such students in an entire career.
So there are no B students?
This seems like bad news for the concept of sports coaching.
This seems like bad news for the concept of sports coaching.
Why do a people teach a people but b people teach c? Lol such elitism
I'm pretty sure most if not all gifted learners really like to learn - that's what makes them gifted. Really the most important thing is to give gifted learners opportunity and make sure they know what's available.
I think a good way to provide "gifted" education is through optional extra-curriculars like math clubs which teach higher-level concepts and function as ways to place-out of lower-level classes. Most students who aren't that smart won't even want to go to these clubs, and the ones that do shouldn't cause any issues, and the gifted students will want to go at minimum it's less work for them to place out of the "boring" classes.
If a particular student or small group is much more gifted than their peers, they should have access to a regional or state or even national club or classes. That way they don't feel like an outcast, in this day and age their are plenty of very talented people in all fields.
I think a good way to provide "gifted" education is through optional extra-curriculars like math clubs which teach higher-level concepts and function as ways to place-out of lower-level classes. Most students who aren't that smart won't even want to go to these clubs, and the ones that do shouldn't cause any issues, and the gifted students will want to go at minimum it's less work for them to place out of the "boring" classes.
If a particular student or small group is much more gifted than their peers, they should have access to a regional or state or even national club or classes. That way they don't feel like an outcast, in this day and age their are plenty of very talented people in all fields.
Agree fully. I was in G&T in elementary and middle school and the primary benefit imo was that I went into highschool with a circle of friends that were mostly high-achievers. Unless you plan on being a horrible overbearing helicopter parent, peer pressure is going to determine a lot more than you're expecting about what your kids like, do, strive for, etc. Despite being at a school that sent zero students to Stanford or Harvard or Cambridge, we had a pretty high upper bound on what you _could_ do if you were motivated. Competitive academic teams were the norm in many subjects (math, languages, history, civics...)
Some of my middleschool friends split off to go to local magnet schools instead and looking at the spread, they didn't actually fair any better than the rest of us. Meanwhile, they mostly describe highschool as a miserable experience that made them vomit with stress instead of the excellent time that I had in public school with access to all the "public school stuff" like marching band, large theatre program involvement from the local community, etc. Maybe some of those things have since died, but I'd be surprised if the difference was enough to justify it.
Some of my middleschool friends split off to go to local magnet schools instead and looking at the spread, they didn't actually fair any better than the rest of us. Meanwhile, they mostly describe highschool as a miserable experience that made them vomit with stress instead of the excellent time that I had in public school with access to all the "public school stuff" like marching band, large theatre program involvement from the local community, etc. Maybe some of those things have since died, but I'd be surprised if the difference was enough to justify it.
> Good teaching for gifted learners requires an understanding of "supported risk." Highly able learners often make very good grades with relative ease for a long time in school. They see themselves (and often rightly so) as expected to make "As," get right answers, and lead the way. In other words, they succeed without "normal" encounters with failure. Then, when a teacher presents a high-challenge task, the student feels threatened. Not only has he or she likely not learned to study hard, take risks and strive, but the student's image is threatened as well.
This is the key. Everybody constantly says you're great cause you are so smart. Your value and identity is build on that for half your life at that point. If you suddenly can't deal with something - it means you're a fraud. Better to fail because you haven't tried ("you're so smart but so lazy") than to fail after a solid try ("you are not special after all, you're just a regular kid").
And for a while it works - you put less effort not to risk being "found out", you get same effects (or even better effects because if you haven't tried and still got A it means you're that much smarter). Then it stops working and you're absolutely miserable never having learned to put in the work.
I don't know how to "fix" this problem, I think the first step is to stop showering gifted kids with praise.
This is the key. Everybody constantly says you're great cause you are so smart. Your value and identity is build on that for half your life at that point. If you suddenly can't deal with something - it means you're a fraud. Better to fail because you haven't tried ("you're so smart but so lazy") than to fail after a solid try ("you are not special after all, you're just a regular kid").
And for a while it works - you put less effort not to risk being "found out", you get same effects (or even better effects because if you haven't tried and still got A it means you're that much smarter). Then it stops working and you're absolutely miserable never having learned to put in the work.
I don't know how to "fix" this problem, I think the first step is to stop showering gifted kids with praise.
Seriously. The constant praise and expectation that I'm "soooo smart" was terrible ego-bolstering and false-confidence-building I didn't need or want. I have a lifelong problem with taking on challenges that I might not succeed at or easily crush, even as I near the age of 40. I've had to work REALLY hard to suppress my instinct to avoid failure and just face challenges head-on. It's seriously a constant battle.
That said, nothing could have changed the fact that during my entire childhood, I saw everyone around me struggling with (or not breezing through) things I found super easy, and I got very used to finding everything easy. I had extremely few opportunities to fail, relative to anyone else around me. If something was hard, I basically just wouldn't do it. That's nothing to do with praise, and unfortunately a much harder issue to even spot, let alone mitigate.
After thinking about what I've just written here, I feel like the praise issue is like the surface-level problem but the "only knows how to succeed" is a deeper and probably more-important issue to look out for.
That said, nothing could have changed the fact that during my entire childhood, I saw everyone around me struggling with (or not breezing through) things I found super easy, and I got very used to finding everything easy. I had extremely few opportunities to fail, relative to anyone else around me. If something was hard, I basically just wouldn't do it. That's nothing to do with praise, and unfortunately a much harder issue to even spot, let alone mitigate.
After thinking about what I've just written here, I feel like the praise issue is like the surface-level problem but the "only knows how to succeed" is a deeper and probably more-important issue to look out for.
Some researchers suggest parents should praise effort instead of intelligence.
see https://www.nytimes.com/1998/07/14/science/praise-children-f...
Also children should be permitted to fail.
see https://www.nytimes.com/1998/07/14/science/praise-children-f...
Also children should be permitted to fail.
I haven't heard anyone disagree. Praising intelligence instead of effort is incredibly pernicious and foolish. I can speak from my own life experience.
[deleted]
In grade school I was in a gifted program. I think either my good memory or IQ allowed me to pass certain tests with multiple choices or logical decisions .
In the long run regardless of your talents you eventually reach a peak where your talents don’t work anymore. It started for me in Junior high and in Community college and University.
I eventually graduated by the grit that made my degree take longer than most and I really wish I had been given more challenges like that. My parents did the best they could. But the thing that really helped me was the constant flood of computers that were hand me downs from my uncle . I initially made twice what my mom made, tried to do a startup that failed after burn out , worked at three other jobs and some freelancing for distributed ledger technology and now I make four times my mom makes and I quadrupled my net worth in 3 years by living with my parents .
At college I did have a capstone project where I investigated lambda calculus with a self distributed operation and discovered a few cellular automata that had interesting features . So life has treated me well with grit I suppose.
I gave a talk at a hacking Confrence and pyOhio and to be honest last year was one of the best years of my life and I can’t wait to figure out what’s next.
In the long run regardless of your talents you eventually reach a peak where your talents don’t work anymore. It started for me in Junior high and in Community college and University.
I eventually graduated by the grit that made my degree take longer than most and I really wish I had been given more challenges like that. My parents did the best they could. But the thing that really helped me was the constant flood of computers that were hand me downs from my uncle . I initially made twice what my mom made, tried to do a startup that failed after burn out , worked at three other jobs and some freelancing for distributed ledger technology and now I make four times my mom makes and I quadrupled my net worth in 3 years by living with my parents .
At college I did have a capstone project where I investigated lambda calculus with a self distributed operation and discovered a few cellular automata that had interesting features . So life has treated me well with grit I suppose.
I gave a talk at a hacking Confrence and pyOhio and to be honest last year was one of the best years of my life and I can’t wait to figure out what’s next.
IQ and conscientiousness are different dimensions, successful people usually have both but one can have a lot of one without much of the other. I personally know people who've gotten perfect scores on standardized testing but haven't really succeeded much in life because they lacked conscientiousness.
When I was about 10, my primary school teacher asked my Mum if I'd be interested to going to our local University on Saturday mornings for additional Maths lessons. It was all funded by the local government at the time, and they had some teachers who basically ran through parts of higher level mathematics in a 'fun' way - did things like work through International Maths Olympiad problems, things that were tangential to the syllabus a few years ahead of where we were but would reach. I went to this til I was 16. For me, who came from a background where I knew nobody who went to University, it was a really enriching experience. It lead to me becoming a physicist. I met other people who were similarly good at Maths where there just weren't those people at my school. It kept me interested in the subject when I found it very dull at school, because it was so easy.
Unfortunately the programme got cut. They tried running it as a private tutoring type service but that made a focus on sticking to the syllabus, and eventually it closed. Was a real shame. There were probably a couple of hundred students across a city with a population of ~700k in the urban area.
Unfortunately the programme got cut. They tried running it as a private tutoring type service but that made a focus on sticking to the syllabus, and eventually it closed. Was a real shame. There were probably a couple of hundred students across a city with a population of ~700k in the urban area.
Most studies on going to specialized schools full of gifted people show it doesn't have positive impact on future outcomes compared to going to regular school.
Dobbie and Fryer (2013) look at New York City, comparing kids whose test scores are just-above versus just-below the cut points, and find that “exposure to these higher-achieving and more homogeneous peers has little impact on college enrollment, college graduation, or college quality.”
Abdulkadriglu, Angrist, and Pathak (2014) look at Boston and find that “the marked changes in peer characteristics at exam school admissions cutoffs have little causal effect on test scores or college quality.”
Barrow, Sartain, and de la Torre (2020) look at an effort in Chicago to give a boost to lower-scoring kids who came from high-poverty neighborhoods and find that “for students from low-SES neighborhoods, we estimate negative effects on grades and the probability of attending a selective college.”
Dobbie and Fryer (2013) look at New York City, comparing kids whose test scores are just-above versus just-below the cut points, and find that “exposure to these higher-achieving and more homogeneous peers has little impact on college enrollment, college graduation, or college quality.”
Abdulkadriglu, Angrist, and Pathak (2014) look at Boston and find that “the marked changes in peer characteristics at exam school admissions cutoffs have little causal effect on test scores or college quality.”
Barrow, Sartain, and de la Torre (2020) look at an effort in Chicago to give a boost to lower-scoring kids who came from high-poverty neighborhoods and find that “for students from low-SES neighborhoods, we estimate negative effects on grades and the probability of attending a selective college.”
I think I went to the wrong "Donnie and Fryer 2013" because it had an abstract that made the schools sound pretty good? [1]
> youth offered admission to the Promise Academy middle school score 0.283 standard deviations higher on a nationally-normed math achievement test and are 14.1 percentage points more likely to enroll in college. Admitted females are 12.1 percentage points less likely to be pregnant in their teens, and males are 4.3 percentage points less likely to be incarcerated
[1] https://www.nber.org/papers/w19581
> youth offered admission to the Promise Academy middle school score 0.283 standard deviations higher on a nationally-normed math achievement test and are 14.1 percentage points more likely to enroll in college. Admitted females are 12.1 percentage points less likely to be pregnant in their teens, and males are 4.3 percentage points less likely to be incarcerated
[1] https://www.nber.org/papers/w19581
"The Impact of Attending a School With High Achieving Peers" is the one, which focused on tested into honors high school. Seems like some lottery charter schools do work though!
I can imagine that would be true for kids just at the cutoff. They are either toward the bottom of an advanced school or at the very top of a typical school. There are tradeoffs involved.
I wonder if the same is true for kids who are well above the cutoff, for whom there is not the same tradeoff. For example, either the kid is at the top of an advanced school or the top of a typical school. I can't imagine that doesn't affect college admissions.
I wonder if the same is true for kids who are well above the cutoff, for whom there is not the same tradeoff. For example, either the kid is at the top of an advanced school or the top of a typical school. I can't imagine that doesn't affect college admissions.
I lost all interest in the school system when experiencing all the "Inappropriate Instruction(s) for Gifted Learners" from that article. Started playing computer games instead and smoked weed every day for several years. University was the first place I really felt challenged. Ended up doing a PhD in physics. I sometimes wonder how much more (if anything) I could have achieved with the right instruction early on. Sometimes I wonder if I should try teaching.
I am gifted, and one of my degrees is in teaching, and I've taught in a school for gifted children. Having the advanced students be "junior teachers" to the struggling students benefits both groups. It stimulates deep understanding for the gifted student, which is not catered for in the "recipe" provided.
Fact is that students will respect information provided by their peers above that provided by teachers. This is well known. See Vygotsky for example.
Fact is that students will respect information provided by their peers above that provided by teachers. This is well known. See Vygotsky for example.
I tested into the gifted program in elementary school, and honestly it was refreshing in that it gave me something else to do. I didn’t have great instruction or curriculum. But I was given freedom. I’m sure lots of kids need these rich curated experiences to thrive, but lots of kids also just need room to develop and follow their own academic interests. In 6th grade my English teacher took me and another boy aside. She said based on our initial evals she didn’t have anything to teach us for at least 9 weeks and we were free to choose a research topic and present it to her at the end of the quarter. She checked in with us once a week or so. We spent class time in the library otherwise. It was one of the more memorable positive experiences I had in school.
Who better to talk about gifted education than Terrence Tao
https://terrytao.wordpress.com/career-advice/advice-on-gifte...
https://terrytao.wordpress.com/career-advice/advice-on-gifte...
For anyone considering teaching a gifted and talented student, as a former TX state G&T teacher I'd currently recommend either homeschooling or a Sudbury Valley school [0]. The outcomes for the "no tests, no lectures" format of Sudbury Valley schools produces better results vs traditional programs[1]. This fact is known by many educators who follow up with the question "but I wouldn't have a job at a Sudbury Valley school since teaching is no longer needed..."
I myself have worked at both trad and Sudbury, and could not in good conscience continue in trad education. Everything I leaned about pedagogy told me the trad format caused the worst outcomes, yet the school boards prevented me and other teachers from making any changes.
It's sad to realize how ineffective the trad methods are, and that many teachers know it yet follow along because they need the paycheck.
If I have children they will only attend Sudbury valley schools or be homeschooled in a similar format.
It actually prepares children to be self reliant, self teaching adults, vs the trad model that prepares for totalitarianism and simple memorization [2].
I know it's hard for many adults who went to a trad school model to accept that it's one of the worst formats possible when measured against other formats, but is it really so hard to believe? Consider everything you know about humans, and how we often fall into bad patterns even when when we know better. It's not so hard to realize how a bad model has been doubled down on for over a century, and the people in control of it have no interest in admitting they've been propagating a bad system this whole time.
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudbury_school
[1] https://circleschool.org/wp-content/uploads/Circle-School-Gr...
[2] https://www.cantrip.org/gatto.html
I myself have worked at both trad and Sudbury, and could not in good conscience continue in trad education. Everything I leaned about pedagogy told me the trad format caused the worst outcomes, yet the school boards prevented me and other teachers from making any changes.
It's sad to realize how ineffective the trad methods are, and that many teachers know it yet follow along because they need the paycheck.
If I have children they will only attend Sudbury valley schools or be homeschooled in a similar format.
It actually prepares children to be self reliant, self teaching adults, vs the trad model that prepares for totalitarianism and simple memorization [2].
I know it's hard for many adults who went to a trad school model to accept that it's one of the worst formats possible when measured against other formats, but is it really so hard to believe? Consider everything you know about humans, and how we often fall into bad patterns even when when we know better. It's not so hard to realize how a bad model has been doubled down on for over a century, and the people in control of it have no interest in admitting they've been propagating a bad system this whole time.
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudbury_school
[1] https://circleschool.org/wp-content/uploads/Circle-School-Gr...
[2] https://www.cantrip.org/gatto.html
We all know that humans naturally gravitate towards the path of least resistance, especially children because they have not built up the wisdom to recognize such patterns in themselves, how can such a school system prevent unmotivated children from essentially playing video games all day on their phone?
Those schools have existed for 80+ years, and have better long term outcomes in education level, income, and satisfaction. They do not in any way force children to do any learning, which allows children to have the space to learn to love learning on their own.
Every single child you know who sits and plays games is a product of a system that they hate, where even going to the bathroom is not guaranteed. Children (and adults) who sit mindlessly on games and TV are the product of a system built around oppression and total lack of autonomy. American adults often only have a few minutes a day of personal freedom, so why bother doing anything but sit and wait for the next command from the system.
However, yes, there are some people that when given the freedom to do whatever they want with literally unlimited time will only play video games. And the uncomfortable truth is they probably wouldn't get much out of a traditional school either. After all, something like 30% of American adults read at the 5th grade level. So why torture them in a traditional school? If you see the research from the Sudbury schools, you'll see a good third just go on to manual, service, manufacturing, and labor jobs. Considering that was basically all humanity did up until a hundred years ago, I'm surprised it's so low. We need to stop acting like those are lessor jobs. It's noble to work with one's hands, and I think forcing every child into a college degree path is cruel.
However for the majority of Sudbury graduates that go on to higher education, they do so despite never having taken a single test, single lecture, single math class, single spelling quiz. They are allowed to play unlimited video games at school, but choose not to, because video games are not as fun as learning and developing mastery.
Having grown up this way, I can attest, there's just so much more interesting things to do than play video games. Sure I'd play a few hours a day, but then it gets old and I'd build a trebuchet, get my student pilots licence, learn to program to make my own games, write a novel with my friends, write plays, join an acting troupe, become a lifeguard, learn to oil paint, learn classical guitar, play countless hours of futbol, get into computer networking to setup LAN parties, take gymnastics, read stacks of books every week, get a job at a rock climbing camp, start a coffeeshop at 16, discover history (starting with medieval combat tactics and siege warfare of course!). The list goes on and on. The joys of self learning barely got me through college, which I hated, with all the tests and stupid deadlines and arbitrary requirements.
Now as an adult I've been able to keep up that love and learn so much more on my own terms.
I understand maybe it's not for everyone, but the research seems clear it's better for the majority, so it really should be the default system. What sort of a population do we want, one of cowed automatons, or one of independent self learners who love developing mastery for it's own sake? Creative thinkers who know their own minds, or people who will turn in the report by Friday? Which set of skills do you think makes a better citizen who can navigate our complex world, and bring us into a better future?
This doesn't even talk about how Sudbury schools are significantly cheaper than trad schools. Often only three adults can run a school of 80+ kids. And they still get better outcomes than trad schools at less than a 1/3rd the price. And right there we see why educators (especially school administrators) keep it under wraps.
Every single child you know who sits and plays games is a product of a system that they hate, where even going to the bathroom is not guaranteed. Children (and adults) who sit mindlessly on games and TV are the product of a system built around oppression and total lack of autonomy. American adults often only have a few minutes a day of personal freedom, so why bother doing anything but sit and wait for the next command from the system.
However, yes, there are some people that when given the freedom to do whatever they want with literally unlimited time will only play video games. And the uncomfortable truth is they probably wouldn't get much out of a traditional school either. After all, something like 30% of American adults read at the 5th grade level. So why torture them in a traditional school? If you see the research from the Sudbury schools, you'll see a good third just go on to manual, service, manufacturing, and labor jobs. Considering that was basically all humanity did up until a hundred years ago, I'm surprised it's so low. We need to stop acting like those are lessor jobs. It's noble to work with one's hands, and I think forcing every child into a college degree path is cruel.
However for the majority of Sudbury graduates that go on to higher education, they do so despite never having taken a single test, single lecture, single math class, single spelling quiz. They are allowed to play unlimited video games at school, but choose not to, because video games are not as fun as learning and developing mastery.
Having grown up this way, I can attest, there's just so much more interesting things to do than play video games. Sure I'd play a few hours a day, but then it gets old and I'd build a trebuchet, get my student pilots licence, learn to program to make my own games, write a novel with my friends, write plays, join an acting troupe, become a lifeguard, learn to oil paint, learn classical guitar, play countless hours of futbol, get into computer networking to setup LAN parties, take gymnastics, read stacks of books every week, get a job at a rock climbing camp, start a coffeeshop at 16, discover history (starting with medieval combat tactics and siege warfare of course!). The list goes on and on. The joys of self learning barely got me through college, which I hated, with all the tests and stupid deadlines and arbitrary requirements.
Now as an adult I've been able to keep up that love and learn so much more on my own terms.
I understand maybe it's not for everyone, but the research seems clear it's better for the majority, so it really should be the default system. What sort of a population do we want, one of cowed automatons, or one of independent self learners who love developing mastery for it's own sake? Creative thinkers who know their own minds, or people who will turn in the report by Friday? Which set of skills do you think makes a better citizen who can navigate our complex world, and bring us into a better future?
This doesn't even talk about how Sudbury schools are significantly cheaper than trad schools. Often only three adults can run a school of 80+ kids. And they still get better outcomes than trad schools at less than a 1/3rd the price. And right there we see why educators (especially school administrators) keep it under wraps.
I found this article extremely accurate. I was part of the gifted program in my district and we constantly had to educate folks on what gifted education is and push back against the district when they tried to shut down the program. Mostly on a basis that it 'wasn't fair' to other students that the gifted students (GIEP) had special accommodations. Though no one ever argued against the IEP students and their accommodations.
Then we wonder why companies feel the need to import talent from anywhere other than North America.
it's hilarious to me as a foreigner to read this topic. my (gifted) school taught (American) university Math in 8th grade and it was fine. it's a public school with little funding and no endowment - the teachers just teach different stuff and noone really bullies you if you falls behind (most likely because they have their weak stuff too)
I was in the Gifted and Talented Education program in California in elementary school. All I remember about it is that we would occasionally get pulled out of our class to go to the GATE room and work on something else.
Once we came back a few minutes early to find our classroom was locked. Turned out the rest of the class was out on the playground having fun while we were doing busy work about some artist.
Once we came back a few minutes early to find our classroom was locked. Turned out the rest of the class was out on the playground having fun while we were doing busy work about some artist.
Not sure why this one page was picked from this website but to say the very least: this is the "bright side" and gets talked about quite often, many resources are available one way or another.
But the "dark side" is https://www.nagc.org/resources-publications/resources-parent... and notice how shorter it is but I would argue it is just as important to get help on the "left behind" areas than it is to get help on the areas which are "ahead". Wish I had.
Check https://www.hellomotherhood.com/the-effects-of-isolation-on-... as well.
But the "dark side" is https://www.nagc.org/resources-publications/resources-parent... and notice how shorter it is but I would argue it is just as important to get help on the "left behind" areas than it is to get help on the areas which are "ahead". Wish I had.
Check https://www.hellomotherhood.com/the-effects-of-isolation-on-... as well.
Hmm, that's a lot, and it's even deeper than it looks! It's interesting stuff, but I wonder if the author was annoyed at being told to sum it up.
Maybe meta: It's kinda too bad, in a lot of ways, that there's still this gifted/not dichotomy, this cultural meme we've labored under for multiple centuries now.
A few years back, for a while, I made hard-but-good money coaching parents in understanding the gifts of their children. Every single child has a set of gifts that are really valuable. One approach I used was designing a more theoretical gifted context around the child, tracking and tailoring it while observing them, and then relating those idea-space concepts back to the here and now.
The approach I preferred is way different from the traditional "gifted child" definition-based approach, by which data and professional levels of subjectivity are used for ranking. I still have a couple of friends from this world who are in their '40s and fighting over who has the higher IQ. Which is not to say it's all like that, but I do think the weaknesses of holding this weirdly polarizing view can and should be put behind us, even at this late point.
Even though my approach was different, I never realized until I started how hard parents will try to 1) discern just how _you_ view intellect and gifts, and 2) attempt from day zero to shoehorn their child into the extreme higher ends of that model. I had to develop a separate model for working with parents who had extreme views about gifted children. If you've ever worked in earnest to develop a very thoughtful model meant to help create the best outcomes possible, only to watch people try to game it over and over, you know what I mean.
One of the most important issues for most of the kids (IMO) was so much different though--it was definitely not this gifts/no gifts issue. It was closer to the perception of troubling relationship differentials among the people in their various life contexts. Kids and parents. The family at home. The kids and the teachers they don't like. And it's funny, it's not even a perception of hatred, anger, or abuse. It's more like the full spectrum. The person who can make you laugh and act in the now can be just as dangerous to your well-being as the person who pisses you off.
This stuff was causing so many of the kids pain, robbing them of sleep, and throwing them into a strangely irresistible open rebellion against family members, friends, and other people and school systems that were trying to help them. It could get so bad that there wasn't any room for learning anymore.
So in my view one of the easiest blockers that can prevent the "gifted effect" at all is really obvious--it's this troubling relationship differential issue. It will get in the way of everything, it will block powerful learning-stimulation signals and it will make psychological damage almost certain once it starts disturbing sleep.
Conversely when most of the contextual relations are at least pretty calming, or ideally even mutually-encouraging and open, _everybody_ starts looking gifted. Plus there's less of a reason to say, "I'm _more_ gifted," as a means of self-protection. This was always my favorite thing to see.
Maybe meta: It's kinda too bad, in a lot of ways, that there's still this gifted/not dichotomy, this cultural meme we've labored under for multiple centuries now.
A few years back, for a while, I made hard-but-good money coaching parents in understanding the gifts of their children. Every single child has a set of gifts that are really valuable. One approach I used was designing a more theoretical gifted context around the child, tracking and tailoring it while observing them, and then relating those idea-space concepts back to the here and now.
The approach I preferred is way different from the traditional "gifted child" definition-based approach, by which data and professional levels of subjectivity are used for ranking. I still have a couple of friends from this world who are in their '40s and fighting over who has the higher IQ. Which is not to say it's all like that, but I do think the weaknesses of holding this weirdly polarizing view can and should be put behind us, even at this late point.
Even though my approach was different, I never realized until I started how hard parents will try to 1) discern just how _you_ view intellect and gifts, and 2) attempt from day zero to shoehorn their child into the extreme higher ends of that model. I had to develop a separate model for working with parents who had extreme views about gifted children. If you've ever worked in earnest to develop a very thoughtful model meant to help create the best outcomes possible, only to watch people try to game it over and over, you know what I mean.
One of the most important issues for most of the kids (IMO) was so much different though--it was definitely not this gifts/no gifts issue. It was closer to the perception of troubling relationship differentials among the people in their various life contexts. Kids and parents. The family at home. The kids and the teachers they don't like. And it's funny, it's not even a perception of hatred, anger, or abuse. It's more like the full spectrum. The person who can make you laugh and act in the now can be just as dangerous to your well-being as the person who pisses you off.
This stuff was causing so many of the kids pain, robbing them of sleep, and throwing them into a strangely irresistible open rebellion against family members, friends, and other people and school systems that were trying to help them. It could get so bad that there wasn't any room for learning anymore.
So in my view one of the easiest blockers that can prevent the "gifted effect" at all is really obvious--it's this troubling relationship differential issue. It will get in the way of everything, it will block powerful learning-stimulation signals and it will make psychological damage almost certain once it starts disturbing sleep.
Conversely when most of the contextual relations are at least pretty calming, or ideally even mutually-encouraging and open, _everybody_ starts looking gifted. Plus there's less of a reason to say, "I'm _more_ gifted," as a means of self-protection. This was always my favorite thing to see.
This “relationship differential” idea is intriguing but you described it in such vaguely general terms that I’m not sure I understand what you mean. Could you maybe give a concrete example?
Thanks & sure, and there are different ways you can describe those different effects of relating.
Let's take the current context. Here's a differential effect where you have politely asked me to clarify for you.
We can ask--"is that close to what we want? How does it benefit the parties involved? And if we call this information transfer with minimal emotional content, what if one expressed more emotional contents? Same effect or different somehow?"
So we start to use some basic transactional analysis to get at a higher level idea of the system of outcomes from the relationship.
We can also name the relationship by the type of effect. Over time the same groups of natural patterns will emerge in other relationships, so we can use the label as: A filter, a leverage point for teaching, etc.
That's what I'm referring to, the system of thinking about differentials in this way. It will naturally overlap somewhat with the existing concepts like "friendship" and "working relationship," etc. In fact, some people will cling to those terms because it's what they know--"well isn't this just a friendship?"
But by expressing the specifically new and unexplored contextual facets, we can bridge gaps in previous modes of thought about relating and solve problems that couldn't otherwise be solved under those more traditional concepts. So no, it's not just a friendship, any more than a computer running Photoshop is not just an adding machine; there are clear advantages for using additional terms as descriptors.
Also I should add that it's a high level system of perceptions, so I leave out lots of concrete details with intent. This is to help to fully claim the broader concept space as a "construction zone," because it's been my experience that getting into details too soon is a common mistake, and may even block in- and outflows- from areas of strategic leverage. For example I try to claim and use lots of metaphor. It's weird but it works.
In general, people are too concerned about detail at a cultural level and you can see this kind of "detail panic" (not referring to your comment, just in general) even at policymaking levels, which is the last place it should be a relevant concern. So culturally we clearly need more people who can sit in strategy, show how it can be interpreted as-is, and demonstrate how it naturally informs details over time. (Digression because of the details/example nature of your inquiry--anyway it's really fun stuff, thanks for asking)
Let's take the current context. Here's a differential effect where you have politely asked me to clarify for you.
We can ask--"is that close to what we want? How does it benefit the parties involved? And if we call this information transfer with minimal emotional content, what if one expressed more emotional contents? Same effect or different somehow?"
So we start to use some basic transactional analysis to get at a higher level idea of the system of outcomes from the relationship.
We can also name the relationship by the type of effect. Over time the same groups of natural patterns will emerge in other relationships, so we can use the label as: A filter, a leverage point for teaching, etc.
That's what I'm referring to, the system of thinking about differentials in this way. It will naturally overlap somewhat with the existing concepts like "friendship" and "working relationship," etc. In fact, some people will cling to those terms because it's what they know--"well isn't this just a friendship?"
But by expressing the specifically new and unexplored contextual facets, we can bridge gaps in previous modes of thought about relating and solve problems that couldn't otherwise be solved under those more traditional concepts. So no, it's not just a friendship, any more than a computer running Photoshop is not just an adding machine; there are clear advantages for using additional terms as descriptors.
Also I should add that it's a high level system of perceptions, so I leave out lots of concrete details with intent. This is to help to fully claim the broader concept space as a "construction zone," because it's been my experience that getting into details too soon is a common mistake, and may even block in- and outflows- from areas of strategic leverage. For example I try to claim and use lots of metaphor. It's weird but it works.
In general, people are too concerned about detail at a cultural level and you can see this kind of "detail panic" (not referring to your comment, just in general) even at policymaking levels, which is the last place it should be a relevant concern. So culturally we clearly need more people who can sit in strategy, show how it can be interpreted as-is, and demonstrate how it naturally informs details over time. (Digression because of the details/example nature of your inquiry--anyway it's really fun stuff, thanks for asking)
I understand less than before. Originally I assumed "troubling relationship differentials" meant "their relationships struggle with the difference in status from them and people in power over them". Now you're describing someone asking you a question as a "differential effect" and saying "thinking about differentials" as a plain noun, a structure that only allows the mathematical definition of "differential" to fit for me.
I spent time reading this link trying to understand what you mean: https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/392979/different...
I spent time reading this link trying to understand what you mean: https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/392979/different...
In my work, "differentials" makes some sense because I do a lot of thinking in terms of specific groupings, which I guess in that SO link would fit next to classes. I am talking about differences but in more of a logic-derived, mechanistic way compared to more usual ways of thinking about people. This helps to apply thinking that is a bit more hands-off, which is useful for the same reason that DATA was useful in ST:TNG, I guess you can say. (Not that it's super unique to think that way; certainly lots of people are capable of logically thinking themselves into gigantic problems, like Michael Larson and _Press Your Luck_)
I wish I could really do it all justice here but HN comments probably just aren't the place, anyway.
I wish I could really do it all justice here but HN comments probably just aren't the place, anyway.
If you can condense this thread and relate to the subject, a blog would be interesting.
Okay, so that was a bit stream-of-consciousness but it sounds like you’re saying that dysfunctional relationships are much more harmful to a gifted child’s (or any child’s) future prospects than any perceived lack of proper education. I could agree with that.
I would amend dysfunctional to any-functional. Like a really good friendship can do lasting damage to one's ability to level up in life. Plus we are looking at upsides too, like pro-whatever-function for dial-a-learning-experience granularity.
Lots of weird but true facts leading into the ahem, streams of consciousness. It goes really deep and winds around for very good reason. Inventing words you and I can share here is brainutationally expensive, concision with existing words often requires mutual expertise, so path-forging with general wording is made rough and ready; get a heavy machete.
Lots of weird but true facts leading into the ahem, streams of consciousness. It goes really deep and winds around for very good reason. Inventing words you and I can share here is brainutationally expensive, concision with existing words often requires mutual expertise, so path-forging with general wording is made rough and ready; get a heavy machete.
[deleted]
So this is a decent article overall but it's missing a key part of the discussion which is "why?".
Gifted children don't just benefit from instruction catered to them, they often need it and the absence of it can be actively damaging. Such children experience the world differently from normal people just by simple function of being less normal.
I attended an academically selective high school, yet I was the "nerd" at the nerd school, I went on to do a CS degree and again, I was the nerd in what could be considered the nerd course at arguably the nerdiest university. Both institutions are probably considered best of breed in my country. So I would say I'm probably pretty qualified to speak on what it's like being "gifted".
The sad reality is that gifted often isn't accompanied by success, at-least not in the outright sense that many think about it and that is because said gifts many times come with costs. Not always, some have social skills, athleticism and are highly functioning. However in most cases extreme intellect also comes with being a social outcast and not sharing in the same hobbies or worse yet not even relating on the same level with similarly aged peers. Turns out increased intellect also generally comes with accelerated maturity and differing interests to those less mature, who would have known!
So how does this factor into schooling? (prepare for gross generalisations). Well first of all a school is generally one of the worst places on the planet for a gifted child, especially for their favourite hobby - learning. It's full of kids that don't give a rats ass about learning anything, adults that are tasked with trying to make these other children do something they don't want to do/play babysitter and a ton of arbitrary rules. Teachers don't have time for gifted children, they are struggling to manage a classroom of clowns and/or try keep the laggards up to a passable standard. Which is another problem, as a society we seem to care much much more about ensuring special needs children aren't left behind than we are that our best and brightest are able to achieve their potential. Maybe we just think "hey they are smart, they will work it out" (oftentimes we do) but I really don't think people are seeing how "gifted" kids struggle.
I tend to quote "gifted" for this very reason. Everyone I know that falls into the category has emotional scars for one reason or another, most of which borne early in life during school and endure their entire life. So yeah, we are smart but we are also likely on the spectrum, even when social difficulties are mild our interests shoehorn us into isolation that further increases social development problems because of how cruel children are.
The best thing my parents/educators did for me was to realize the system isn't built for people like us and accelerate me 2 grades (at 2 different times, not a single massive jump) so I could at least get out of it as soon as possible. I didn't do as well in school as I should have, I was branded a trouble maker, suspended constantly and even expelled twice (well asked to leave). I didn't even do anything that bad - I just wasn't wanted there.
University was better but I was woefully in-equipped to actually do well. Not for intellectual reasons, just beaten down self-esteem, clinical depression, etc. I made life long friends however so it really doesn't matter in the end. If anything finally making it to university saved my life because there was finally a high enough concentration of people like me to make real friends.
These days I'm "very successful" by societies metrics. Well traveled, wealthy, own my own place, have a great relationship, healthy, all of that. So I guess there is some truth to the fact that "we will work it out".
But the experience has made it really hard to stomach the idea of having my own children. What if they turn out like me? What if they have to endure the depression and pain I did? (and still battle with) I don't know if I could do that. I'm not strong like my parents are, it would break me to see my child go through that knowing that the system is stacked against them.
So while everything in this article sounds helpful I think the most helpful thing would be to try address the actual dynamic of schools from a social and emotional perspective for gifted children. That alone would make the biggest difference in their outcomes.
Gifted children don't just benefit from instruction catered to them, they often need it and the absence of it can be actively damaging. Such children experience the world differently from normal people just by simple function of being less normal.
I attended an academically selective high school, yet I was the "nerd" at the nerd school, I went on to do a CS degree and again, I was the nerd in what could be considered the nerd course at arguably the nerdiest university. Both institutions are probably considered best of breed in my country. So I would say I'm probably pretty qualified to speak on what it's like being "gifted".
The sad reality is that gifted often isn't accompanied by success, at-least not in the outright sense that many think about it and that is because said gifts many times come with costs. Not always, some have social skills, athleticism and are highly functioning. However in most cases extreme intellect also comes with being a social outcast and not sharing in the same hobbies or worse yet not even relating on the same level with similarly aged peers. Turns out increased intellect also generally comes with accelerated maturity and differing interests to those less mature, who would have known!
So how does this factor into schooling? (prepare for gross generalisations). Well first of all a school is generally one of the worst places on the planet for a gifted child, especially for their favourite hobby - learning. It's full of kids that don't give a rats ass about learning anything, adults that are tasked with trying to make these other children do something they don't want to do/play babysitter and a ton of arbitrary rules. Teachers don't have time for gifted children, they are struggling to manage a classroom of clowns and/or try keep the laggards up to a passable standard. Which is another problem, as a society we seem to care much much more about ensuring special needs children aren't left behind than we are that our best and brightest are able to achieve their potential. Maybe we just think "hey they are smart, they will work it out" (oftentimes we do) but I really don't think people are seeing how "gifted" kids struggle.
I tend to quote "gifted" for this very reason. Everyone I know that falls into the category has emotional scars for one reason or another, most of which borne early in life during school and endure their entire life. So yeah, we are smart but we are also likely on the spectrum, even when social difficulties are mild our interests shoehorn us into isolation that further increases social development problems because of how cruel children are.
The best thing my parents/educators did for me was to realize the system isn't built for people like us and accelerate me 2 grades (at 2 different times, not a single massive jump) so I could at least get out of it as soon as possible. I didn't do as well in school as I should have, I was branded a trouble maker, suspended constantly and even expelled twice (well asked to leave). I didn't even do anything that bad - I just wasn't wanted there.
University was better but I was woefully in-equipped to actually do well. Not for intellectual reasons, just beaten down self-esteem, clinical depression, etc. I made life long friends however so it really doesn't matter in the end. If anything finally making it to university saved my life because there was finally a high enough concentration of people like me to make real friends.
These days I'm "very successful" by societies metrics. Well traveled, wealthy, own my own place, have a great relationship, healthy, all of that. So I guess there is some truth to the fact that "we will work it out".
But the experience has made it really hard to stomach the idea of having my own children. What if they turn out like me? What if they have to endure the depression and pain I did? (and still battle with) I don't know if I could do that. I'm not strong like my parents are, it would break me to see my child go through that knowing that the system is stacked against them.
So while everything in this article sounds helpful I think the most helpful thing would be to try address the actual dynamic of schools from a social and emotional perspective for gifted children. That alone would make the biggest difference in their outcomes.
This dichotomy of gifted/not gifted learners is heavily biased on what you see is all that is and ignores the cognitive medium, the water we all swim in and through we all interact.
Yes, as s private tutor (mostly for maths) I witnessed young people (1 of 10) who are not only exceptionally fast at grasping abstract concepts but in the same breath can actually use them to infer/deduce correctly (at times in new ways). In that case I have to switch gears to keep them excited but at the same time rebuild their formal foundation which is weathered through the school system (strechted in time beyond recognition and disintegrated in small "digestible" pieces i.e. uncomplete or no proofs at all) without hampering their great intuitions, a very difficult task.
That being said from a purely cognitive/neurological perspective the possibilities in "wiring the brain" are for all intents and purposes the same between healthy newborns. Our culture tends to overemphasize the little differences which has its upside in empowering the individual (very important!) but its downside in the indifference of the overwhelming similarities. Once I positively acknowledged the (nearly identical) neurophysiological start parameters in every human especially during the critical period from birth to adulthood, it changed my whole attitude. It is like realizing we all share the same very recent - in evolutionary terms - African origin, it puts relatedness into perspective. From that vantage point I feel much better equipped to appreciate the wonderful individual differences and discover the light and shadows of giftedness in every learner without the need for them in participating or winning math olympiads, international music competitions, chess tournaments, gymnastics championships ...
Being familiar with the empirical example (admittedly small in sample size but nevertheless what are the odds?) of Judith Polgár [0] the impressivness all nearly lies in the determination of her father's experiment without having to resort to some dubious concept of "giftedness". This of course does not imply we should all teach everyone the same, but - quite the opposite- to the needs of the young (hearing them out), that's were I agree in conclusion but without the needless distinction between some upper limit of gifted and not gifted.
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%A1szl%C3%B3_Polg%C3%A1r
Yes, as s private tutor (mostly for maths) I witnessed young people (1 of 10) who are not only exceptionally fast at grasping abstract concepts but in the same breath can actually use them to infer/deduce correctly (at times in new ways). In that case I have to switch gears to keep them excited but at the same time rebuild their formal foundation which is weathered through the school system (strechted in time beyond recognition and disintegrated in small "digestible" pieces i.e. uncomplete or no proofs at all) without hampering their great intuitions, a very difficult task.
That being said from a purely cognitive/neurological perspective the possibilities in "wiring the brain" are for all intents and purposes the same between healthy newborns. Our culture tends to overemphasize the little differences which has its upside in empowering the individual (very important!) but its downside in the indifference of the overwhelming similarities. Once I positively acknowledged the (nearly identical) neurophysiological start parameters in every human especially during the critical period from birth to adulthood, it changed my whole attitude. It is like realizing we all share the same very recent - in evolutionary terms - African origin, it puts relatedness into perspective. From that vantage point I feel much better equipped to appreciate the wonderful individual differences and discover the light and shadows of giftedness in every learner without the need for them in participating or winning math olympiads, international music competitions, chess tournaments, gymnastics championships ...
Being familiar with the empirical example (admittedly small in sample size but nevertheless what are the odds?) of Judith Polgár [0] the impressivness all nearly lies in the determination of her father's experiment without having to resort to some dubious concept of "giftedness". This of course does not imply we should all teach everyone the same, but - quite the opposite- to the needs of the young (hearing them out), that's were I agree in conclusion but without the needless distinction between some upper limit of gifted and not gifted.
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%A1szl%C3%B3_Polg%C3%A1r
Reads like a nightmare waiting to unfold. They should first understand what 'teaching well' means, before tackling 'teaching gifted learners'.
I'm always shocked to see how much the education system ignores cognitive science.
I'm always shocked to see how much the education system ignores cognitive science.
everything said in this article applies to non gifted learners as well!
…no? The first point, of course, but the author explicitly stated that. A fundamental (and non-controversial) aspect of “giftedness” is that the child learns at a much more rapid pace than peers. This almost automatically requires adjustments to curriculum that would not apply to a non-gifted child.
People do not learn at a constant speed throughout their education. Almost everyone has at least a few runs of "giftedness", at least in some subjects, where they could benefit from acceleration; and conversely, even gifted students might need some "remedial" effort from time to time.
A person with an IQ of 140 will learn pretty much every academic subject faster than someone with an IQ of 100. It’s kind of baked into the metric. Now, of course this doesn’t mean that they will have any advantage in learning, say, how to ride a bike or dribble a basketball, but the discussion here is clearly directed at “book learning” which comprises the majority of school curriculum.
I think the obsession with gifted learners being "different" from the "normal" is... weird. I look at the phenomenon as more of a "Here's how we cater to what we perceive as our best and brightest" ... when the reality is that everyone has the capacity to be bright, environment and competition just play a huge role.
I mean, my lifetime experience is one of "being different". I was fundamentally different from my classmates since day 1. Teachers picked up on it immediately and were concerned that, while I breezed through everything and seemed to be very "sharp" (or whatever funny word they would use), I was totally disinterested and seemed bored and unhappy. I was. I learned nearly everything I was shown instantly, and usually understood it effortlessly. In grade 3 I excelled so strongly at spelling that the teacher had me make the weekly spelling tests. In grade 5 I was the only kid who actually copied down and memorized "pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis" and "phthatlylsulfithiazole" when the teacher wrote them on the board to be funny (though he spelled them wrong at the time, I later learned). FWIW I just typed those from memory without checking their spelling.
Environment surely does play some part. I grew up in a home that fostered intellect, learning, growth etc. I'm sure there are countless studies on "nature vs. nurture" and my subjective view is both are relevant, perhaps even fairly 50/50. But my life growing up I was the exception to the norm in all environments. I have some really stark examples that could really hit this home but I'm not going to post them on here, but... there's a lot of truth to the "differentness of giftedness".
Environment surely does play some part. I grew up in a home that fostered intellect, learning, growth etc. I'm sure there are countless studies on "nature vs. nurture" and my subjective view is both are relevant, perhaps even fairly 50/50. But my life growing up I was the exception to the norm in all environments. I have some really stark examples that could really hit this home but I'm not going to post them on here, but... there's a lot of truth to the "differentness of giftedness".
> everyone has the capacity to be bright
Everyone is different, that is true. But taking that multifaceted existence and flattening it when really this discussion is only about one aspect of that existence (that effectively has already been flattened, but in some other way) is not nice. It tells folks who are quite simply better at some aspects of their life than other people that in fact they are not better, those other people are sometimes better too. But this is about learning. They are objectively better.
That means some folks are objectively worse - which doesn't mean they can't excel in some other area of life. That's not what's under discussion.
Everyone is different, that is true. But taking that multifaceted existence and flattening it when really this discussion is only about one aspect of that existence (that effectively has already been flattened, but in some other way) is not nice. It tells folks who are quite simply better at some aspects of their life than other people that in fact they are not better, those other people are sometimes better too. But this is about learning. They are objectively better.
That means some folks are objectively worse - which doesn't mean they can't excel in some other area of life. That's not what's under discussion.
Ok, that's in the States.
Can anyone share their educational experience in Canada?
Can anyone share their educational experience in Canada?
I am not gifted and have never been in any gifted programs. When I was at UBC I came across a program called the University Transition Program (UTP) that was located on the UBC campus and run by the Vancouver School Board.
The program is for 13-15 year olds to complete high school in 2 years.
[1] has more details about the program, comments from students, and a newsletter produced by the program.
[2] has some recent discussion on some limitations and issues with the program.
[1] https://universitytransition.ca/
[2] https://www.ubyssey.ca/news/university-transition-program-ca...
The program is for 13-15 year olds to complete high school in 2 years.
[1] has more details about the program, comments from students, and a newsletter produced by the program.
[2] has some recent discussion on some limitations and issues with the program.
[1] https://universitytransition.ca/
[2] https://www.ubyssey.ca/news/university-transition-program-ca...
That's COOL! Thank you very much. Hopefully it'll be around if and or when my little progeny wants/needs it.
It's absurd in this day and age that point 1 and point 2 are deemed only important for gifted learners. Our education system has such a low level of differentiation and is geared so much towards achieving a base line of mediocrity for the highest number of students that we serve almost no one well.
Point one: "Good curriculum and instruction for gifted learners begins with good curriculum and instruction"
Doesn't every child deserve good curriculum and instruction and can't good curriculum and instruction help elevate every child from whatever situation they are beginning with? Yes, the author acknowledges good curriculum is important. But why should students considered gifted be more entitled to this than others. And wouldn't good instruction help highlight hidden giftedness in those that are less advantaged.
Point Two: "Good teaching for gifted learners is paced in response to the student's individual needs." It's widely known in the education community that mastery learning (1-1 instruction and independent study where students learn at their own pace using curriculum that builds upon concepts) results in 2 sigma better achievement than learning that happens in a classroom setting where every child learns at the same rate. Children speed up sometimes, they slow down sometimes. Shouldn't every child have the possibility to learn at their own pace, go fast when they're learning quickly and slow when they are struggling more, much as when someone visiting a foreign country sometimes learns language at a fast clip and is other times processing, and then may have a big burst forward? Why is this better or important for just "gifted children?"
Point 3 makes sense "Good teaching for gifted learners happens at a higher "degree of difficulty". Even so, a good teacher understands that learning must be differentiated. It's great for students to be challenged, but students also need to be having fun while they're challenged. Way too often, students who are gifted, or who society deems are gifted are put under tremendous, horrible pressure to succeed. As a tutor, I've seen kids throw up from the stress and strain of homework and getting into Ivy League Schools. All this is so unnecessary. A good teacher helps children develop grit, by gently encouraging to push past obstacles, but ultimately challenges should be fun and engaging. And like points 2 and 3, EVERY student should be encouraged to do things that are a little difficult for them. Again, that is why mastery learning, which is completely accessible now with adaptive learning apps, books, khan academy and the plethora of free tutoring programs emerging, is a better way. Don't just put gifted kids in a more challenging class.
In my opinion point 4 is verging on sheer idiocy. "Good teaching for gifted learners requires an understanding of "supported risk." More often than not gifted learners have an imposter syndrome because they are so smart that they may do poorly on standardized tests or have a sense that they are not actually smart, but just faking it. If we really want to support gifted children, we'll praise their hard work and efforts, not they're results. That's what they have control over and where they can most excel.
All and all, the biggest takeaway from all this is that what gifted children and all children need to excel is mastery learning. And if parents want to encourage their gifted children to reach their full potential, they can cultivate a growth mindset by praising their hard work and curiosity.
Point one: "Good curriculum and instruction for gifted learners begins with good curriculum and instruction"
Doesn't every child deserve good curriculum and instruction and can't good curriculum and instruction help elevate every child from whatever situation they are beginning with? Yes, the author acknowledges good curriculum is important. But why should students considered gifted be more entitled to this than others. And wouldn't good instruction help highlight hidden giftedness in those that are less advantaged.
Point Two: "Good teaching for gifted learners is paced in response to the student's individual needs." It's widely known in the education community that mastery learning (1-1 instruction and independent study where students learn at their own pace using curriculum that builds upon concepts) results in 2 sigma better achievement than learning that happens in a classroom setting where every child learns at the same rate. Children speed up sometimes, they slow down sometimes. Shouldn't every child have the possibility to learn at their own pace, go fast when they're learning quickly and slow when they are struggling more, much as when someone visiting a foreign country sometimes learns language at a fast clip and is other times processing, and then may have a big burst forward? Why is this better or important for just "gifted children?"
Point 3 makes sense "Good teaching for gifted learners happens at a higher "degree of difficulty". Even so, a good teacher understands that learning must be differentiated. It's great for students to be challenged, but students also need to be having fun while they're challenged. Way too often, students who are gifted, or who society deems are gifted are put under tremendous, horrible pressure to succeed. As a tutor, I've seen kids throw up from the stress and strain of homework and getting into Ivy League Schools. All this is so unnecessary. A good teacher helps children develop grit, by gently encouraging to push past obstacles, but ultimately challenges should be fun and engaging. And like points 2 and 3, EVERY student should be encouraged to do things that are a little difficult for them. Again, that is why mastery learning, which is completely accessible now with adaptive learning apps, books, khan academy and the plethora of free tutoring programs emerging, is a better way. Don't just put gifted kids in a more challenging class.
In my opinion point 4 is verging on sheer idiocy. "Good teaching for gifted learners requires an understanding of "supported risk." More often than not gifted learners have an imposter syndrome because they are so smart that they may do poorly on standardized tests or have a sense that they are not actually smart, but just faking it. If we really want to support gifted children, we'll praise their hard work and efforts, not they're results. That's what they have control over and where they can most excel.
All and all, the biggest takeaway from all this is that what gifted children and all children need to excel is mastery learning. And if parents want to encourage their gifted children to reach their full potential, they can cultivate a growth mindset by praising their hard work and curiosity.
If you have a curriculum designed for the average student of IQ 100, then a student with IQ 100 or 110 stuck with that curriculum will not lose as much opportunity than a student with an IQ of 140 would.
> And if parents want to encourage their gifted children to reach their full potential, they can cultivate a growth mindset by praising their hard work and curiosity.
If only it were that easy! You can’t “talk” a kid into a growth mindset. It comes from facing real challenges and overcoming them. If the school environment rarely provides a real intellectual challenge then a fixed mindset is simply the path of least resistance.
If only it were that easy! You can’t “talk” a kid into a growth mindset. It comes from facing real challenges and overcoming them. If the school environment rarely provides a real intellectual challenge then a fixed mindset is simply the path of least resistance.
I’m no potato covered in gravy, bro.
Anyway, I think that many, perhaps most kids need mentors/coaches. Parents can only do so much, and teenagers don’t want to listen to their parents anyway. Gifted learners surely aren’t any different. The ‘content’ problem seems solved - there is just so much interesting stuff out there, and so many great resources. The guidance and encouragement and diversity of influences is what is missing. This seems very hard or impossible to scale up.