Separating gifted children hasn't led to better achievement(hechingerreport.org)
hechingerreport.org
Separating gifted children hasn't led to better achievement
https://hechingerreport.org/opinion-separating-gifted-children-hasnt-led-to-better-acheivement/
388 comments
Amen to this. I was separated (went to Stuyvesant HS in NYC) and it made a world of difference for me, as compared to JHS or elementary school. Prior to Stuy, I was bullied like crazy, beaten, and it was very difficult to try and fit in with many of the others around me who, frankly, just didn't give a fuck. It really sucked.
Stuy was a different world, and the first time in my life I felt the opportunity to actually just learn, and not have to hide my report card or test scores as soon as I got them, because doing "too well" meant a beatdown after school.
2/3 of my MIT admission essays were about this experience, incidentally.
[edit 1] Aside: one additional anecdote is that I was constantly getting in trouble before Stuy; I was always bored, because the work was easy, and nobody ever gave me additional work to do, so I would talk to the other kids. I was always an extrovert, and very bad at being bored; I could not sit in one place and just stare at the wall, or pretend to listen to a teacher drone on about some geometry thing I already knew. So I got in trouble constantly for distracting the other kids. That stopped in Stuy, because I wasn't bored; I was challenged.
[edit 2] The other corollary to this, of course, is that on the last day of JHS, after having held my reactions entirely for nearly a decade, and just taking the beatings...I finally lost it. It was really bad, and on the last day of JHS I went absolutely apeshit on this kid for pushing me around and punching me, after I gave him three warnings. Easily one of the top 3 least proud moments of my life. That could have been avoided, too, though you could make an argument a large part of that was also due to it being taboo to actually talk to someone about your feelings in the 90s. I never wanted to fight back because I was afraid of hurting them (I had been training in martial arts for like 7-8 years) and because I didn't want to get in trouble. It was dumb.
Stuy was a different world, and the first time in my life I felt the opportunity to actually just learn, and not have to hide my report card or test scores as soon as I got them, because doing "too well" meant a beatdown after school.
2/3 of my MIT admission essays were about this experience, incidentally.
[edit 1] Aside: one additional anecdote is that I was constantly getting in trouble before Stuy; I was always bored, because the work was easy, and nobody ever gave me additional work to do, so I would talk to the other kids. I was always an extrovert, and very bad at being bored; I could not sit in one place and just stare at the wall, or pretend to listen to a teacher drone on about some geometry thing I already knew. So I got in trouble constantly for distracting the other kids. That stopped in Stuy, because I wasn't bored; I was challenged.
[edit 2] The other corollary to this, of course, is that on the last day of JHS, after having held my reactions entirely for nearly a decade, and just taking the beatings...I finally lost it. It was really bad, and on the last day of JHS I went absolutely apeshit on this kid for pushing me around and punching me, after I gave him three warnings. Easily one of the top 3 least proud moments of my life. That could have been avoided, too, though you could make an argument a large part of that was also due to it being taboo to actually talk to someone about your feelings in the 90s. I never wanted to fight back because I was afraid of hurting them (I had been training in martial arts for like 7-8 years) and because I didn't want to get in trouble. It was dumb.
I had a similar experience. It was wonderful to be put into a magnet school filled with kids that were smart and generally wanted to learn (every one of them went to a college/university), and to be separated from the kids that hated school. That is the sad thing: so many of the kids causing problems in the normal schools wouldn't cause problems if they attended schools that focused on their vitalities in the way that the magnet schools focused on ours.
I have exactly the same experience as the previous commenters, I was also basically rescued into a (learning-)conducive environment and I'm seriously thankful for that. The alternative would've very likely been awful because I've seen on a good friend of mine what happens when there isn't an opportunity to get into a "magnet school". It basically caused clinical depression and such a strong distaste for school that it made completing even high school basically impossible.
Having been educated in probably a different country, with a different school system, I am surprised to read all these comments.
Not saying my country school system is perfect, it isn't. And there are cases of abuse, bullying does exist. But 30 years ago I was the good, shy, student in a poor neighbourhood of a big city and never suffered or witnessed anything too bad (and from 4 to 12 year old we had a kid with Down syndrome in our class). And nobody would even think about splitting kids by ability, we don't have "advanced"/"honours" classes.
Not saying my country school system is perfect, it isn't. And there are cases of abuse, bullying does exist. But 30 years ago I was the good, shy, student in a poor neighbourhood of a big city and never suffered or witnessed anything too bad (and from 4 to 12 year old we had a kid with Down syndrome in our class). And nobody would even think about splitting kids by ability, we don't have "advanced"/"honours" classes.
In Germany we split children into three kinds of school at around age 10-11. There is decent mobility between the schools if you over- or under-perform, and little to no splitting within the same school (well, until age 16/17). It's generally a positive experience for everyone, with everyone getting the right teachers and the right mix of practical and theoretical work/learning.
At some point, every fully developed education system splits kids by ability. Not everyone goes on to advanced studies, engineering school, law, or medicine. Not everyone learns a trade.
That split might not happen until age 18, but my wager is that it does happen everywhere. The question is when is the optimal time? I tend to think earlier rather than later.
That split might not happen until age 18, but my wager is that it does happen everywhere. The question is when is the optimal time? I tend to think earlier rather than later.
How early is “earlier”? Children have no clue of possibilities or consequences. This is why we have an age of majority: to protect kids from long term consequences of life choices they are not ready to make. Why should education be different? - what right have we to put a big cross on a child’s future and declare “you can never amount to more than this” based on childish behaviours and choices they may yet grow out of? We do this in no other area of life.
There's strong evidence that early childhood nutrition, how many words of adult conversation a child hears in a week, how safe and secure they feel as infants/toddlers, and many other differences in children's early experiences can cast a much longer shadow over their lives than the difference of being put into a class where they learn single variable algebra in 6th vs 9th grade.
What right do we have to impose these impacts on children? Or is the school tracking a form of trolley problem where it feels wrong to some to take an active choice?
Because you asked the direct question, I'll give a direct answer. "How early is earlier?" Based on an N of 5 (myself, my two siblings, and my two kids), I think it can be done productively as early as 3rd grade or so. (For me, it was done earlier than that [age 5], which I'm extremely happy about, but I'm not sure that's scalable or even typically appropriate.)
I do think that a periodic re-assessment is also appropriate. If someone "runs well" in 3rd grade and then reverts to the mean, they should revert to the mean academic leveling as well. If someone develops late and starts to excel in 7th grade, there should be a way for them to pivot towards the advanced classes then as well.
What right do we have to impose these impacts on children? Or is the school tracking a form of trolley problem where it feels wrong to some to take an active choice?
Because you asked the direct question, I'll give a direct answer. "How early is earlier?" Based on an N of 5 (myself, my two siblings, and my two kids), I think it can be done productively as early as 3rd grade or so. (For me, it was done earlier than that [age 5], which I'm extremely happy about, but I'm not sure that's scalable or even typically appropriate.)
I do think that a periodic re-assessment is also appropriate. If someone "runs well" in 3rd grade and then reverts to the mean, they should revert to the mean academic leveling as well. If someone develops late and starts to excel in 7th grade, there should be a way for them to pivot towards the advanced classes then as well.
The split doesn't need to be permanent, you could always rearrange the top/bottom achievers in each group.
But that never happens. I come from the opposite side of the equation.
I was not allowed into the gifted and talented program in my school because I had a lot of trouble with reading when I was young. However, I was probably the most gifted person in mathematics. But the G&T program was only for people who scored high on both.
So what happened? I was stuck in the average kids where I excelled but was bored. Anytime math was being worked, I was sent to the computer lab to play on the Apple IIes.
I eventually caught up from a reading perspective but the damage was already done. The american school systems aren't prepped to manage anything out of the ordinary. So since I wasn't in the gifted program, I didn't have the accelerated math during elementary school. Therefore, I couldn't start algebra as early. That means through out high school I was bored stupid. All because of what happened when I was 7 years old.
They made a decision on a 7 year olds ability.
Did it change my life for the worse? Probably not. Unintended consequences and all. I got super interested in computers since I was stuck in a computer lab all the time. I excelled in math in college. Majored in Computer Science with a minor in Mathematics.
BUT just because it worked out doesn't mean they didn't fuck up.
Now I have children. My oldest son ALSO did not qualify for G&T program. Can you guess why? He struggled with reading in early elementary school(we tried to help but sorry, people develop at different rates). Oh my gosh but he is good in math. The difference now is there is no escape for him like I had. He is stuck being bored in class.
My youngest son is adopted so we don't have much insight on family history from an academic standpoint but he is killing it in all aspects of school. He likely will be in the G&T program. Yet, I don't believe he is superior in intellect compared to my oldest. They have different skillsets.
So yeah, I think doing G&T determination in elementary school is pretty dang stupid. That crap will all fall into place naturally in middle school.
It is a system based on laziness and testing to the tests.
I was not allowed into the gifted and talented program in my school because I had a lot of trouble with reading when I was young. However, I was probably the most gifted person in mathematics. But the G&T program was only for people who scored high on both.
So what happened? I was stuck in the average kids where I excelled but was bored. Anytime math was being worked, I was sent to the computer lab to play on the Apple IIes.
I eventually caught up from a reading perspective but the damage was already done. The american school systems aren't prepped to manage anything out of the ordinary. So since I wasn't in the gifted program, I didn't have the accelerated math during elementary school. Therefore, I couldn't start algebra as early. That means through out high school I was bored stupid. All because of what happened when I was 7 years old.
They made a decision on a 7 year olds ability.
Did it change my life for the worse? Probably not. Unintended consequences and all. I got super interested in computers since I was stuck in a computer lab all the time. I excelled in math in college. Majored in Computer Science with a minor in Mathematics.
BUT just because it worked out doesn't mean they didn't fuck up.
Now I have children. My oldest son ALSO did not qualify for G&T program. Can you guess why? He struggled with reading in early elementary school(we tried to help but sorry, people develop at different rates). Oh my gosh but he is good in math. The difference now is there is no escape for him like I had. He is stuck being bored in class.
My youngest son is adopted so we don't have much insight on family history from an academic standpoint but he is killing it in all aspects of school. He likely will be in the G&T program. Yet, I don't believe he is superior in intellect compared to my oldest. They have different skillsets.
So yeah, I think doing G&T determination in elementary school is pretty dang stupid. That crap will all fall into place naturally in middle school.
It is a system based on laziness and testing to the tests.
I didnt see this growing up and dont see it now. Anyone can enter G&T at any time and kids drop out as well. Be an advocate for your kid with the administration. At one school we attended, math was done in 4 week blocks. There was a test to rank the kid for that block and then they were grouped with like skilled kids.
My wife volunteered a lot for the school and as a result she knew all the administration. She was able to get our preferred teacher each year etc. Get to know the teachers and administration, help them out. They can bend any rule at any time.
We are in private school now. In my son's 1st grade class (mostly 7 year olds), there is a kid who just turned 5. Private school could be a good option.
Public schools even within the same school system can be different, so dont generalize across the entire public school system.
My wife volunteered a lot for the school and as a result she knew all the administration. She was able to get our preferred teacher each year etc. Get to know the teachers and administration, help them out. They can bend any rule at any time.
We are in private school now. In my son's 1st grade class (mostly 7 year olds), there is a kid who just turned 5. Private school could be a good option.
Public schools even within the same school system can be different, so dont generalize across the entire public school system.
Similar story here but in a different country in eastern Europe where there's no G&T program. I had access to intensive math though and shudder at the thought of my son would have to deal with that. He's currently just 2yo so we don't have an insight yet..
Immediately thought of Microsoft and their horrible stack ranking. Sounds like a way to get overly stressed children.
In the US we have increasing numbers of students who don’t speak English? Is it ability grouping to give Spanish instruction? Are such students not “disruptive”?
[deleted]
The solution is not to pull out a handful of high performers, it’s to kick out the even smaller number of disrupters.
This is 95% of why we send our kids to private school. In the rare case a disrupter makes it in, they're "counseled out." It's a travesty that schools permit a handful of bad apples to ruin the learning experience of everyone else.
It’s not the schools permitting it, it’s the justice system making getting rid of disruptive students impossible.
https://educationrealist.wordpress.com/2019/08/06/public-sch...
> Wonder what allows a school to at least consider permanent expulsion? The student has to be convicted of:
> murder drug dealing aggravated assault rape possession of a deadly weapon
> But expulsion can be permanent if and only if he or she is over 16 or older. And of course, forget all those criteria for the disability manifestation exclusion–if the student was convicted but disability is the reason for the behavior, no action can be taken.
https://educationrealist.wordpress.com/2019/08/06/public-sch...
> Wonder what allows a school to at least consider permanent expulsion? The student has to be convicted of:
> murder drug dealing aggravated assault rape possession of a deadly weapon
> But expulsion can be permanent if and only if he or she is over 16 or older. And of course, forget all those criteria for the disability manifestation exclusion–if the student was convicted but disability is the reason for the behavior, no action can be taken.
That's for expulsion, which makes a certain amount of sense. A student with home life problems or a psychological condition is still entitled to an education. But why is it incumbent on every other student that they receive their education in the same classroom?
Because there’s only so much money to go around and trying to educate people who don’t want to be educated is expensive. They need very small class sizes to show any improvements and you get very high staff turnover if you concentrate them because teaching apathetic students is bad but teaching hostile or violent ones is just awful.
And any kind of discipline or moving them to special classes or special schools leads to being sued.
Education is not the first or second priority in the school system or things would look quite different.
And any kind of discipline or moving them to special classes or special schools leads to being sued.
Education is not the first or second priority in the school system or things would look quite different.
It's short sighted of course, because the money will be spent many times again over a lifetime for every botched kid. Both on the giving and receiving end of abuse.
Yes, but how would that work in practice? Special schools for high performers is much more palatable than special schools for quarantining children who aren't going to amount to anything (no matter what you call it and how you design it, this is how it will be perceived).
We have them - even in my small town there was a high school where the kids who were in and out of juvi would attend - everyone at the school knew it’s reputation. It’s where you went if you were expelled.
Yeah we had one too. Though, the one we had actually tried. It had an auto mechanics program and a few different trades classes and other more specialized stuff the regular high school didn't have. A lot of those kids actually started doing better themselves when they got expelled and were sent there.
If mandatory school attendance were repealed, it would work itself quite quickly.
All well and good, but those people still get to vote.
There is no difference between voters who attended school only because they were forced to, and hypothetical voters who weren’t forced to attend school.
We don’t trust kids with the choice to smoke, drink or have sex. Hell, we don’t trust them to watch certain films. Why should we trust them with the choice of education any more than other choices that can screw up the rest of their life?
Who's trusting kids with anything? Do they not have parents?
The point is that students who are not engaged themselves, and whose parents are not engaged enough to ensure that they go, will no longer make school less valuable for all by their very presence.
The point is that students who are not engaged themselves, and whose parents are not engaged enough to ensure that they go, will no longer make school less valuable for all by their very presence.
This seems like it's probably very wrong.
But would bring other problems. The cure is likely worse than the disease.
Most of history? I'd argue three Rs is the basics everyone needs, and then they can find their own way.
Most of history was a very different place before advancements outright snapped assumptions in half. Before most of the population was farm laborers and societal hierarchical complexity and knowledge was limited by this.
Industrialization was raising pollution and standards of living and making it clear that a lack of education wasn't a healthy option - although partially driven by wrong reasons - paranoid anticatholicism that ignores basically all of European history of how much influence the church /actually/ has over secular power.
Even post WW2 industrialization the population was still at a high school diploma as an actual advantage but "optional".
We need more informed not less. Problematically the populace also needs more critical thinking and self guidance while there are many unhealthy attitudes towards learning.
Industrialization was raising pollution and standards of living and making it clear that a lack of education wasn't a healthy option - although partially driven by wrong reasons - paranoid anticatholicism that ignores basically all of European history of how much influence the church /actually/ has over secular power.
Even post WW2 industrialization the population was still at a high school diploma as an actual advantage but "optional".
We need more informed not less. Problematically the populace also needs more critical thinking and self guidance while there are many unhealthy attitudes towards learning.
Why do you believe public schooling improves critical thinking?
Compared to nothing on those who try to fill the void? Hell yes. Look at those raised in literal cults for example or among fundamentalists. Now I know these are tripping hazards for ants low goal posts but for once "it could be worse" is pertinent. An education can provide the prerequisites to evaluate and enable it.
Often they do try to put their bullshit in it but their hamhandedness in practice often backfires by adolescence - especially with their own twisted priorities and misrule related discontent.
Often they do try to put their bullshit in it but their hamhandedness in practice often backfires by adolescence - especially with their own twisted priorities and misrule related discontent.
Yes, it can help, but do you think public school can provide its own 'cult'?
If you look at the opportunities and statistics for high school dropouts, it makes a compelling case to the contrary.
And I argue this as an education system skeptic and college dropout myself.
And I argue this as an education system skeptic and college dropout myself.
Presumably most people who “find their own way” would not drop out of high school, and their experience would be better — because there would be no one present who was only attending because the law mandates that they do so.
Reading and writing are unnecessary for much of the population given the progress in speech to text and text to speech algorithms. We can go straight to learning how to express ideas in speech and learning how to locate, access and understand information.
And calculators have rendered arithmetic unnecessary for some time. The focus should be on how to use calculation for financial and technical purposes.
And calculators have rendered arithmetic unnecessary for some time. The focus should be on how to use calculation for financial and technical purposes.
I wonder if inability to do mental math explains the enormous debt people have these days...
Most of history was pretty bad.
On what do you base that claim? Some say other periods and places were much more idyllic than our current state.
I had a history class in school? No period sticks out even remotely comparable to modernity by any metric: violent deaths per capita, general life expectancy, education, leisure time available..
If some future historian were to look at the 20th century he would observe a huge amount of violence and death dwarfing anything that came before. I am not certain the modern age is altogether superior.
[deleted]
Just such a thing is done in Season 4 of HBO's The Wire. It profiles just such a class where the disruptive students are pulled out. Yes, it's fiction but you can see how it'd work and it's pretty interesting to see the changes in attitudes among the "gen pop" class and the special class.
Both exist. There are "last chance" public schools in some areas for those expelled from the main schools, in addition to charter and private schools for the higher achievers.
I don’t think the number of those disrupters is as small as you think it is. It really depends on the school though, for me it was much higher for 7th-10th grade in Vicksburg MS than it was for 11th-12th grade in Bothell WA (a much richer school district).
Disruptive kids can very well be gifted and are bored by school. Doesn't mean every disruptive kid is a genius in hiding of course.
The “disrupters” are usually “pulled out” disproportionately if they are poor or minorities while kids who do the same thing but have more influential families get a “counseling”.
https://www.vox.com/identities/2018/4/5/17199810/school-disc...
https://www.vox.com/identities/2018/4/5/17199810/school-disc...
Yes, some demographics have it worse than others but that's a totally separate variable of the equation though. A rising tide lifts all boats. Not bettering the system because a particular group/groups will not do better relative to some other group even though both groups do better relative to their past position is foolish. This is true for systemic improvements in general, not specific to education.
How does a rising tide lift all boats when you systematically take people off the boat?
Say the education system takes an input of children with a value of 1 and outputs educated people with a "value" between 5 and 10. Even if the system is overtly racist and only outputs minorities of values 5 and 6 it is still beneficial to everyone if the system is improved so that everyone gets a +1
So you mean a system that in practice separates kids by race. Didn’t we already try that before in the South? Ever heard of Jim Crow?
Where do you think all of the funding and resources go when you do that?
Where do you think all of the funding and resources go when you do that?
Stop trying to put words in my mouth. I'm saying that the fact that a system produces unfair outcomes is not a reason to not make improvement that cause the system produce better outcomes across the board. No more, no less.
It doesn’t produce better outcomes for the people you pull out of the system then get ignored and they don’t get the resources, access, or networking opportunities they need. That’s exactly what happened during segregation.
It was a relief when some of the worst bullies finished 9th grade and dropped out.
That’s illegal.
https://educationrealist.wordpress.com/2019/08/06/public-sch...
> Wonder what allows a school to at least consider permanent expulsion? The student has to be convicted of:
> murder drug dealing aggravated assault rape possession of a deadly weapon
> But expulsion can be permanent if and only if he or she is over 16 or older. And of course, forget all those criteria for the disability manifestation exclusion–if the student was convicted but disability is the reason for the behavior, no action can be taken.
https://educationrealist.wordpress.com/2019/08/06/public-sch...
> Wonder what allows a school to at least consider permanent expulsion? The student has to be convicted of:
> murder drug dealing aggravated assault rape possession of a deadly weapon
> But expulsion can be permanent if and only if he or she is over 16 or older. And of course, forget all those criteria for the disability manifestation exclusion–if the student was convicted but disability is the reason for the behavior, no action can be taken.
> That's illigal.
That is irrelevant.
This is done, to some extent, via auxillary schools in many affluent areas. If a student is problematic in any myriad of ways, off they are sent to the school with lower standards (often within sight of the other campus). For example, 1994 presidential blue ribbon Brea HS has the Canyon high school meters from its campus, specifically for this purpose.
That is irrelevant.
This is done, to some extent, via auxillary schools in many affluent areas. If a student is problematic in any myriad of ways, off they are sent to the school with lower standards (often within sight of the other campus). For example, 1994 presidential blue ribbon Brea HS has the Canyon high school meters from its campus, specifically for this purpose.
> murder drug dealing aggravated assault rape possession of a deadly weapon
Without punctuation, this sounds like a ridiculously specific and esoteric crime.
Without punctuation, this sounds like a ridiculously specific and esoteric crime.
To be fair you're lucky if murder-drug merely deals aggravated assault. The means by which the deadly weapon became possessed (who knew this was going to take a turn for the supernatural?) is pretty distasteful, though.
> Prior to Stuy, I was bullied like crazy, beaten, and it was very difficult to try and fit in with many of the others around me who, frankly, just didn't give a fuck. It really sucked
Can't we fix bullying in the first place ?
Can't we fix bullying in the first place ?
Lots of child psychologists and teachers believe that parental involvement is key to stopping a child becoming a bully (eg parents actively engaging with their kids welfare) and the most common thing that stops parents being involved in bringing up their kids is poverty. Trying to fix poverty is weirdly controversial.
I wonder if it's better in old style schools not segmented by age. Then faster physical development gives much less of an advantage, and the immature younger students can have their behavior moderated by the older, hopefully more mature students. And older siblings can watch out for younger ones.
Every study I've ever read says this is much better.
I haven't given this topic a lot of thought, but at first glance it sounds like one of the very hardest problems imaginable to solve? It's hardwired deep into human psychology, and you have limited ways of affecting - or even communicating with - school-aged kids.
[deleted]
I think we have several millennia of proof we cannot.
> Prior to Stuy, I was bullied like crazy, beaten, and it was very difficult to try and fit in with many of the others around me who, frankly, just didn't give a fuck. It really sucked.
I want to echo this. I too was bullied like crazy (I was ridiculed/outcast for being "gay", in the homosexual sense, except I was completely straight. But that doesn't particularly matter to middle-schoolers. I was ridiculed for the clothing I wore (it fit funny as I grew in spurts) and was physically beat, too.)
Our local schools had some advanced schools ("tracked", as the article calls it); I applied. In my system, if you met the entrance requirements, your fate was tossed into a lottery. For one particular school, ~100 students were accepted from ~600 applicants. I was 500th on the waitlist for that school. (It was the worst of several.) I spent an extra year in my assigned school because of that, and it was hell. It was a gift from God when I got out of there the next year. (I got off one of the wait lists!)
It took ten years to really work through most of the resulting depression and confidence issues my time at my assigned school left me with. I have no idea if I would have succeeded if not for "tracked" education.
The author is wrong on several points:
> Eight Bay Area school districts found similar results when they de-tracked middle-school mathematics and provided professional development to teachers.
Perhaps it was the professional development, and not the de-tracking that led to better results? The link doesn't seem to support the author's conclusion, either, and largely seems to credit the professional development.
> [other remarked about "fixed-ability"] We are at a point where the negative impacts of fixed-ability thinking are undeniable.
I have never heard of "fixed-ability", and at least where I was, it was never the argument for separating out achieving students. The arguments was not that the lower-performing students weren't capable¹ of performing, it just simply that if you taught at their level, you were wasting the potential and the time of the students who were outperforming their peers, as you would have to teach significantly below their ability, which is inevitable when you cater to the lowest common denominator.
> When students, instead, embrace the knowledge that there are no limits to their learning, outcomes improve. When students develop a “limitless perspective” positive changes go through their lives,
And the bullies I was schooled along side with joined hands with the bullied and sang kumbaya. (/s) This is absurd.
> International studies show that the United States is one of the most tracked education systems in the world, but tracking hasn’t led to high achievement for the country.
Tracking is a symptom of people trying to escape the poor baseline education; it is not the cause of the poor baseline education, and eliminating it will not improve that.
> Instead, it has brought about stark racial divisions in opportunity and achievement.
Ah, now it's racist to want to receive an at level education? This argument was bantered around in my school system, and it never made any sense. Some combination of socio-economic standing and what generation you were mattered a whole lot more. (Those with good socioeconomic standing either moved out of system, or enrolled in private schools. First-generation kids — with the exception of the Hispanic community for whatever reasons — seemed to do considerably for whatever reasons. Our "tracked" schools were overrepresented in Asian and (I believe, but these demographics aren't measured) first-generation African-Americans, and under-represented in Hispanic and all other African Americans … and it only ever seemed to me that it was that last one that bothered people.
> Now is the time to invest in the teacher professional development that allows this to happen.
Sure, but this is orthogonal to eliminating tracked education. Add in that every government I've seen seems awfully reluctant to pay the teachers. (And you are paying them for the time they'll need to do this, right?)
> For when we tell students they can reach the sky, and provide them with opportunities to do so, amazing things happen.
This was as patronizing then as it is now.
I can't understand why someone is so eager to shut down the only thing that gave me a future.
¹many of them lacked discipline. They were poorly behaved children, and it's a miracle the teachers wanted to continue to be there at all, IMO. Many of them were clearly not getting discipline taught at home … and teachers are forbidden nowadays from imposing any meaningful discipline themselves.
> The other corollary to this, of course, is that on the last day of JHS, after having held my reactions entirely for nearly a decade, and just taking the beatings...I finally lost it. It was really bad, and on the last day of JHS I went absolutely apeshit on this kid for pushing me around and punching me, after I gave him three warnings. Easily one of the top 3 least proud moments of my life. That could have been avoided, too, though you could make an argument a large part of that was also due to it being taboo to actually talk to someone about your feelings in the 90s. I never wanted to fight back because I was afraid of hurting them (I had been training in martial arts for like 7-8 years) and because I didn't want to get in trouble. It was dumb.
On one of my final days prior to transferring out, I almost lost it on another kid. I think my body language threatened violence, and I think it scared him a bit because I'd never done that. We both still ended up getting dragged to the principal's office, though as I remember I wasn't punished. Today, I regret not actually exacting violence on him. Which runs incredibly contrary to most of what I think my own morals are. But do you just keep trying to fend off the incoming violence forever, or at some point take a stand that might actually make a difference? (It wouldn't be until much later that I read Ender's Game, which argues this very point.) (Or who knows, his friends might have come rushing to his aid, and it would not have been a fair fight at that point.) It was dumb.
I want to echo this. I too was bullied like crazy (I was ridiculed/outcast for being "gay", in the homosexual sense, except I was completely straight. But that doesn't particularly matter to middle-schoolers. I was ridiculed for the clothing I wore (it fit funny as I grew in spurts) and was physically beat, too.)
Our local schools had some advanced schools ("tracked", as the article calls it); I applied. In my system, if you met the entrance requirements, your fate was tossed into a lottery. For one particular school, ~100 students were accepted from ~600 applicants. I was 500th on the waitlist for that school. (It was the worst of several.) I spent an extra year in my assigned school because of that, and it was hell. It was a gift from God when I got out of there the next year. (I got off one of the wait lists!)
It took ten years to really work through most of the resulting depression and confidence issues my time at my assigned school left me with. I have no idea if I would have succeeded if not for "tracked" education.
The author is wrong on several points:
> Eight Bay Area school districts found similar results when they de-tracked middle-school mathematics and provided professional development to teachers.
Perhaps it was the professional development, and not the de-tracking that led to better results? The link doesn't seem to support the author's conclusion, either, and largely seems to credit the professional development.
> [other remarked about "fixed-ability"] We are at a point where the negative impacts of fixed-ability thinking are undeniable.
I have never heard of "fixed-ability", and at least where I was, it was never the argument for separating out achieving students. The arguments was not that the lower-performing students weren't capable¹ of performing, it just simply that if you taught at their level, you were wasting the potential and the time of the students who were outperforming their peers, as you would have to teach significantly below their ability, which is inevitable when you cater to the lowest common denominator.
> When students, instead, embrace the knowledge that there are no limits to their learning, outcomes improve. When students develop a “limitless perspective” positive changes go through their lives,
And the bullies I was schooled along side with joined hands with the bullied and sang kumbaya. (/s) This is absurd.
> International studies show that the United States is one of the most tracked education systems in the world, but tracking hasn’t led to high achievement for the country.
Tracking is a symptom of people trying to escape the poor baseline education; it is not the cause of the poor baseline education, and eliminating it will not improve that.
> Instead, it has brought about stark racial divisions in opportunity and achievement.
Ah, now it's racist to want to receive an at level education? This argument was bantered around in my school system, and it never made any sense. Some combination of socio-economic standing and what generation you were mattered a whole lot more. (Those with good socioeconomic standing either moved out of system, or enrolled in private schools. First-generation kids — with the exception of the Hispanic community for whatever reasons — seemed to do considerably for whatever reasons. Our "tracked" schools were overrepresented in Asian and (I believe, but these demographics aren't measured) first-generation African-Americans, and under-represented in Hispanic and all other African Americans … and it only ever seemed to me that it was that last one that bothered people.
> Now is the time to invest in the teacher professional development that allows this to happen.
Sure, but this is orthogonal to eliminating tracked education. Add in that every government I've seen seems awfully reluctant to pay the teachers. (And you are paying them for the time they'll need to do this, right?)
> For when we tell students they can reach the sky, and provide them with opportunities to do so, amazing things happen.
This was as patronizing then as it is now.
I can't understand why someone is so eager to shut down the only thing that gave me a future.
¹many of them lacked discipline. They were poorly behaved children, and it's a miracle the teachers wanted to continue to be there at all, IMO. Many of them were clearly not getting discipline taught at home … and teachers are forbidden nowadays from imposing any meaningful discipline themselves.
> The other corollary to this, of course, is that on the last day of JHS, after having held my reactions entirely for nearly a decade, and just taking the beatings...I finally lost it. It was really bad, and on the last day of JHS I went absolutely apeshit on this kid for pushing me around and punching me, after I gave him three warnings. Easily one of the top 3 least proud moments of my life. That could have been avoided, too, though you could make an argument a large part of that was also due to it being taboo to actually talk to someone about your feelings in the 90s. I never wanted to fight back because I was afraid of hurting them (I had been training in martial arts for like 7-8 years) and because I didn't want to get in trouble. It was dumb.
On one of my final days prior to transferring out, I almost lost it on another kid. I think my body language threatened violence, and I think it scared him a bit because I'd never done that. We both still ended up getting dragged to the principal's office, though as I remember I wasn't punished. Today, I regret not actually exacting violence on him. Which runs incredibly contrary to most of what I think my own morals are. But do you just keep trying to fend off the incoming violence forever, or at some point take a stand that might actually make a difference? (It wouldn't be until much later that I read Ender's Game, which argues this very point.) (Or who knows, his friends might have come rushing to his aid, and it would not have been a fair fight at that point.) It was dumb.
This! Martial arts, in my case Judo where the first hour was just muscling up, made all the difference: being able to flip and never hit, let aggressors accidentally hit corners of things instead... In the US I don't know how this would have worked, depending on how high escalation can go. Still learning to fight is good advice for bullied kids.
Reading this and the parent post makes me think that prisons are actually kind of like elementary school except for adults. Same kind of bullying, establishing pecking order, repercussions of snitching etc. Although a lot more dangerous/scary.
I have a life story similar to you up through middle-school - second pick for G&T, bullied heavily, repeated physical abuse from peers, ended up hanging out with losers who were into drugs both in middle & high school. After that it diverges though - I switched to a charter school for high school, went to a top liberal arts college, then worked at a couple startups and had a pretty prestigious position at Google. I've still got some scars from that time, but on paper at least, I did okay.
For me, being separated from the bullies made all the difference in the world. And it wasn't separation as in "hang around only with other smart kids" - my charter school was academically worse than the public school that I left behind, and like I said, I hung around with the stoners, rockers, and drop-outs. But the charter school focused explicitly on building community and accepting people for who they were. In short, it made it a point to address the emotional needs of teenagers that so many public institutions conveniently forget about. That made all the difference in the world.
For you - if you can muster the money or get insurance to pay for it, I'd highly recommend seeing a therapist that works with trauma. This stuff sticks with you a long time, but it doesn't have to define your life.
For me, being separated from the bullies made all the difference in the world. And it wasn't separation as in "hang around only with other smart kids" - my charter school was academically worse than the public school that I left behind, and like I said, I hung around with the stoners, rockers, and drop-outs. But the charter school focused explicitly on building community and accepting people for who they were. In short, it made it a point to address the emotional needs of teenagers that so many public institutions conveniently forget about. That made all the difference in the world.
For you - if you can muster the money or get insurance to pay for it, I'd highly recommend seeing a therapist that works with trauma. This stuff sticks with you a long time, but it doesn't have to define your life.
I'm currently not in a position to be able to look up this stuff (making dinner), but Duke has done a lot of research on this stuff under their TIP program that basically everyone in this thread might be interested in: it validates your experiences in numbers as the default for gifted children/adolescents/teenagers when not helped structurally, and provides a reasonable amount of information and resources to try and offset some of their suffering.
There's nothing to really help people who've already experienced it, but seeing the numbers somehow really helped to put it in perspective for me.
It's kind of an epidemic at this point.
There's nothing to really help people who've already experienced it, but seeing the numbers somehow really helped to put it in perspective for me.
It's kind of an epidemic at this point.
I was in TIP. Hanging out with smart, kind kids every summer was the highlight of my year. Lotta great memories. Public school...not so much.
The TIP programs looked fun, shame they were so pricey. I kept getting the invites, but neither me nor anyone I knew had parents who could throw down for it. I do recall doing an excellent forensic science daytime camp program with the law enforcement training program at the community college though. It was only a couple of days long, but the instructor was great and it was a totally unique experience. Making summer programs more accessible and interesting would probably be a great thing for kids of all ability levels to be honest.
I was in TIP and CTY, and I would agree. That was always the best part of the year, and it provided a view into worlds I didn't know existed before. In fifth grade we studied recursion in math and all the kids there were smarter than me. The people were so much more interesting too. Life changing experiences.
"There's nothing ot really help people who've already experienced it."
Exposure therapy. No, don't go trying to get into situations where you get bullied. Re-live your worst experiences in your head over and over again until it gets boring. Make sure you're in a comfortable setting and have some comfort devices nearby (food, a beer, family, etc...) Proven extremely effective in many psychological practices.
I was specifically speaking in the context of Duke's programs; there are plenty of ways for people to try and recover from things elsewhere.
I've been reading this thread and honestly I'm getting the impression that it matters far more what the kids are separated _from_ that whether they're separated at all.
Which tallies with my own experience, in the UK there's secondary school and college (AKA sixth form) before university, which basically means the last two years of high school are separate from the first 5, you go to a different school (sometimes, some places have both on the same campus). And I made the choice to go to a college further out of my way that added 10 hours of cycling onto my commute every week pretty much so I'd never have to speak to anyone from my secondary again, the new place was just another college, no special grade requirements, but not being around the same people and being able to basically "reset" made my life so much better that I can't really argue that never separating kids is a good option.
Which tallies with my own experience, in the UK there's secondary school and college (AKA sixth form) before university, which basically means the last two years of high school are separate from the first 5, you go to a different school (sometimes, some places have both on the same campus). And I made the choice to go to a college further out of my way that added 10 hours of cycling onto my commute every week pretty much so I'd never have to speak to anyone from my secondary again, the new place was just another college, no special grade requirements, but not being around the same people and being able to basically "reset" made my life so much better that I can't really argue that never separating kids is a good option.
Middle school is just terrible in general, I think. Not that high school is much better. But middle school was easily the worst part of my life, though in retrospect I'm thankful it at least wasn't physical bullying. Still, the emotional toll messed me up pretty good.
In my case, I still got bundled in with the "high achievers" in the IB honors program in HS, but it wasn't any better for self-esteem. The kids in that program weren't genuinely smarter or nicer for the most part - they just had parents who were wealthier and able to afford tutors/extra-curriculars plus stable home environments. The teachers in that program were incredibly unaccommodating to disabilities and there was a sickening elitism that the IB kids has towards everyone not in IB. The "normal" kids weren't the ones making me miserable, it was my peers.
I eventually couldn't take existing in that state, and the toll it all took on my mental health came to it's reasonable conclusion in the form of self-directed violence. Eventually transferred schools. Almost dropped out, but found a loophole that let me take some community college classes for credit and graduate a semester early, so I still got through.
Took me a long time to get perspective on all that. My only long-term friends I still have today from HS were from electives - they were skipping class and smoking up in HS. I never considered that option for myself (did no drugs at all back then), since I wasn't really interested in "coping" so much as getting out. But still, I don't think being separated helped at all. Sure I passed every test, but I was socially out of my depth the entire time. Just being surrounded by other young people in general can be a recipe for misery for people who can't fit in. I'd like to think online school would have been better, but not sure if being completely isolated would have just messed me up more in the long run.
Edit: left out a key word, "physical" bullying. There was definitely tons of the other sort.
In my case, I still got bundled in with the "high achievers" in the IB honors program in HS, but it wasn't any better for self-esteem. The kids in that program weren't genuinely smarter or nicer for the most part - they just had parents who were wealthier and able to afford tutors/extra-curriculars plus stable home environments. The teachers in that program were incredibly unaccommodating to disabilities and there was a sickening elitism that the IB kids has towards everyone not in IB. The "normal" kids weren't the ones making me miserable, it was my peers.
I eventually couldn't take existing in that state, and the toll it all took on my mental health came to it's reasonable conclusion in the form of self-directed violence. Eventually transferred schools. Almost dropped out, but found a loophole that let me take some community college classes for credit and graduate a semester early, so I still got through.
Took me a long time to get perspective on all that. My only long-term friends I still have today from HS were from electives - they were skipping class and smoking up in HS. I never considered that option for myself (did no drugs at all back then), since I wasn't really interested in "coping" so much as getting out. But still, I don't think being separated helped at all. Sure I passed every test, but I was socially out of my depth the entire time. Just being surrounded by other young people in general can be a recipe for misery for people who can't fit in. I'd like to think online school would have been better, but not sure if being completely isolated would have just messed me up more in the long run.
Edit: left out a key word, "physical" bullying. There was definitely tons of the other sort.
I started school in Russia in 80s. Back then there were no magnet schools in my small home town but now I realize that the ministry of education came up with a different solution to a bullying problem: a dedicated school for “special needs” children. I do not remember anyone being sent there for bad marks but repeated behavioral offenses would get you there. All the potential bullies were scared shitless to be sent there. It is one thing to be a bully and the strongest guy in the class and totally different to be in the class full of people exactly like you.
We (still) have the same thing in Poland.
Interestingly, people actually graduate from these schools and sometimes go to college afterwards.
I think it's a better system - why make the victim switch schools when obviously they aren't the problem here?
Interestingly, people actually graduate from these schools and sometimes go to college afterwards.
I think it's a better system - why make the victim switch schools when obviously they aren't the problem here?
Everyone advocating for forced abolition of private schools and high-wealth public districts needs to read this thread. Hits too close to home.
Bullying and peer pressure cause serious harm, not just emotionally but economically when good kids drop out of society. These harms would be magnified if kids who don't fit in with the crowd had even fewer options to escape.
Bullying and peer pressure cause serious harm, not just emotionally but economically when good kids drop out of society. These harms would be magnified if kids who don't fit in with the crowd had even fewer options to escape.
> These harms would be magnified if kids who don't fit in with the crowd had even fewer options to escape.
The idea isn't to just get rid of private schools, but to take money that goes into that and finance better public education (which can still include ways for people to move around if needed!)
Having a separate world for the rich means that kids who "don't fit in with the crowd" but don't have wealthy parents won't have any way out.
In an alternate world where more money is invested in the public system, having wealth would no longer be a necessary requirement for having access to alternatives.
The idea isn't to just get rid of private schools, but to take money that goes into that and finance better public education (which can still include ways for people to move around if needed!)
Having a separate world for the rich means that kids who "don't fit in with the crowd" but don't have wealthy parents won't have any way out.
In an alternate world where more money is invested in the public system, having wealth would no longer be a necessary requirement for having access to alternatives.
> Bullying and peer pressure cause serious harm, not just emotionally but economically when good kids drop out of society. These harms would be magnified if kids who don't fit in with the crowd had even fewer options to escape.
That's perhaps a good argument for having smaller free-and-equally-funded public schools with more within any given radius of every residence, with policies that leverage that to provide greater permitted and practical choice for students/parents independent of wealth, but unless freedom from bullying and peer pressure is desired to be gated by wealth I don't see how it opposes, in any way, abolition of either private schools or public districts with superior funding because the local residents are richer.
That's perhaps a good argument for having smaller free-and-equally-funded public schools with more within any given radius of every residence, with policies that leverage that to provide greater permitted and practical choice for students/parents independent of wealth, but unless freedom from bullying and peer pressure is desired to be gated by wealth I don't see how it opposes, in any way, abolition of either private schools or public districts with superior funding because the local residents are richer.
This anecdote resonates with the experiences encountered by my child. What's interesting about our case is that we move every 2-4 years and experience five different states and school districts--all public schools. For reference, our child ordinarily tests in the 99th percentile for the normal battery of tests the school psychologists administered.
A Hawaiian school did not offer a G&T program due to a lack of funding for it. Participating in the normal classroom changed her to the point that it contributed to withdrawing her from school and we instead opted to home school. Coming from the mainland, Hawaii's general curriculum was behind and she became bored, faced relentless bullying from peers for being a "...know it all haole...," and found it difficult to make friends. She often came home with stories regarding the teacher spending significant time dealing with behavioral issues, negatively impacting instruction to the few children looking to learn. The teacher was also culpable for practicing a less engaging and micromanaging teaching style involving smothering children with worksheets during the school day, and forcing parents to initial all assignments and fill out learning logs at night. The teacher treated learning like a chore instead of a fun discovery process, and it killed her curiosity and motivation. After she was assaulted at her bus stop, we pulled her from school.
Fortunately, we only lived in Hawaii for a short time period and I was capable of taking a hiatus from professional life to home school her until we moved from Hawaii. We involved her in local home school groups to facilitate like-minded friendships and the customized, self-paced curriculum enabled her to make substantial strides in her subjects. Thankfully the damage done to her was temporary and she resumed her happy normal curious behavior.
In every other school with a G&T program, she has fit in and flourished. Good teachers, friends, and personal growth on her part. Not acknowledging that people have different aptitudes and motivations, then forcing them to learn from a cookie-cutter styled teaching program is a defunct social experiment gone awry. In our Hawaii case, it seemed like crabs in a bucket when it came to peer bullying. I get it, you're only as strong as your weak is a decent metaphor, but sometimes people and institutions are taking this concept to a degree that forces others down instead of boosting people up. I'm just guessing from personal experiences, but mixing students of all abilities appears to generate a net negative social welfare outcome.
A Hawaiian school did not offer a G&T program due to a lack of funding for it. Participating in the normal classroom changed her to the point that it contributed to withdrawing her from school and we instead opted to home school. Coming from the mainland, Hawaii's general curriculum was behind and she became bored, faced relentless bullying from peers for being a "...know it all haole...," and found it difficult to make friends. She often came home with stories regarding the teacher spending significant time dealing with behavioral issues, negatively impacting instruction to the few children looking to learn. The teacher was also culpable for practicing a less engaging and micromanaging teaching style involving smothering children with worksheets during the school day, and forcing parents to initial all assignments and fill out learning logs at night. The teacher treated learning like a chore instead of a fun discovery process, and it killed her curiosity and motivation. After she was assaulted at her bus stop, we pulled her from school.
Fortunately, we only lived in Hawaii for a short time period and I was capable of taking a hiatus from professional life to home school her until we moved from Hawaii. We involved her in local home school groups to facilitate like-minded friendships and the customized, self-paced curriculum enabled her to make substantial strides in her subjects. Thankfully the damage done to her was temporary and she resumed her happy normal curious behavior.
In every other school with a G&T program, she has fit in and flourished. Good teachers, friends, and personal growth on her part. Not acknowledging that people have different aptitudes and motivations, then forcing them to learn from a cookie-cutter styled teaching program is a defunct social experiment gone awry. In our Hawaii case, it seemed like crabs in a bucket when it came to peer bullying. I get it, you're only as strong as your weak is a decent metaphor, but sometimes people and institutions are taking this concept to a degree that forces others down instead of boosting people up. I'm just guessing from personal experiences, but mixing students of all abilities appears to generate a net negative social welfare outcome.
> I wish I had been better separated from the other kids. I would have been far happier in middle school just hanging around other nice, smart people.
As someone who had both experiences--being in classes that were separated for more advanced students, and being in classes that were not--I second this observation. I was much happier in the separated classes and got much more out of them.
As someone who had both experiences--being in classes that were separated for more advanced students, and being in classes that were not--I second this observation. I was much happier in the separated classes and got much more out of them.
People separate as they go through life, and that should start in school. You shouldn't have to wait until you graduate.
I think the tenor of what you're trying to express is that smart kids shouldn't be abused for being smart. Not a controversial opinion.
Making them unnecessarily cut off from everyone else who isn't quite as "gifted" is worse, in a way. How is that kid going to get out of his/her bubble?
Making them unnecessarily cut off from everyone else who isn't quite as "gifted" is worse, in a way. How is that kid going to get out of his/her bubble?
The thing about "bubbles" is they are inherently normist based on population or status with nothing backing their actual validity. They are recipocial no matter how fucked up the objective differences are. "Man what kind of fucked up bubble are you in if you think burrying or burning your grandma instead of eating her is normal?".
To be frank we already let social norms over reason lead us into enough nightmares and stupid decisions - we shouldn't be encouraging them.
To be frank we already let social norms over reason lead us into enough nightmares and stupid decisions - we shouldn't be encouraging them.
I was part of the "gifted crowd" from 5th grade (9-10 years old) up, and not all of my classes were of the "gifted" variety.
I find this argument uncompelling insofar as "smart" is a crap proxy for "needs protection from bullying". And, insofar as kids who aren't particularly bright have every bit as much of a right to not be mistreated at school, if our key motivation here is keeping kids from being bullied, a solution that is only available to a select few kids who are sometimes perceived as having greater personal worth would be entirely missing the point. Bullying needs to be dealt with in a way that works for everyone.
This!
And as I did mention in another comment I still can barely believe the cases of bullying people describe here, they are horrible! I don't think bullying at such a level is a global problem. I suspect such huge bullying problems must be just a symptom of a deeper society issue. We had a kid with Down syndrome in class for 8 years of primary school and nobody did EVER put a finger on him. By 12 years old I had known my classmates my whole live, quite a few of them also from activities outside school. I didn't like all of them, we had arguments which were not always handled diplomatically, but we had some basic decency towards each other.
Bullying and whether kids should be separated by ability are two orthogonal problems.
And as I did mention in another comment I still can barely believe the cases of bullying people describe here, they are horrible! I don't think bullying at such a level is a global problem. I suspect such huge bullying problems must be just a symptom of a deeper society issue. We had a kid with Down syndrome in class for 8 years of primary school and nobody did EVER put a finger on him. By 12 years old I had known my classmates my whole live, quite a few of them also from activities outside school. I didn't like all of them, we had arguments which were not always handled diplomatically, but we had some basic decency towards each other.
Bullying and whether kids should be separated by ability are two orthogonal problems.
Your points don't have much to do with being gifted though. Is it fine if "normal" kids get physically assaulted and bullied?
I hope all is well now, thanks for sharing.
How old are you?
> Separating gifted children for accelerated learning is great. Ignoring social development by blindly sticking all kids together in unstructured environments where bullying and physical abuse is allowed to persist will override any hope for some kids.
I had no idea that calls to public_policy return type bool.
I had no idea that calls to public_policy return type bool.
Sounds like you have some real problems in your society for that bad experience at school. Surely if you're the gifted individual you claim you are, you'll want to change society rather than seclude yourself from it as much as you can get away with. The non-gifted kids, whatever the fuck that means, don't deserve to bullied/abused either.
The non-gifted kids (to use your terminology) weren't bullied or abused. They were friends. They played sports together. I played sports too, just not with them, because I wasn't invited to. I wasn't 'cool.' I 'tried too hard.' I 'cared too much about learning.'
Not sure what you're going for here?
Not sure what you're going for here?
I added a "non" to the word in the title of the post to indicate the opposite of that thing. But my terminology.
You followed it up by "whatever the fuck that means," implying that you were unclear on what 'gifted' (or the opposite thereof) meant in the first place. I wasn't looking to get into a debate on what it means to be gifted or not, and thus I was making it very clear that I was using your verbiage, and not being disparaging.
No one deserves to be bullied. And I'd be pretty okay with permanently removing bullies from the general population.
That said, in my experience, the gifted/nerdy/aspy kids got the lion's share of the bullying. I still carry it with me decades later, and at least one of my comrades in misery killed herself because of it.
That said, in my experience, the gifted/nerdy/aspy kids got the lion's share of the bullying. I still carry it with me decades later, and at least one of my comrades in misery killed herself because of it.
Do you not feel that gifted/nerdy/aspy kids reciprocated?
It might just be that I’m a complete asshole, but I grew up in Mississippi feeling very isolated and estranged from everyone around me. I think I definitely felt like I was bullied when I was very young. But by high school and college, I was being outright toxic to people.
If I am generous to myself, a lot of that could be attributed to anxiety, depression, lack of examples of how to behave pro-socially in my life, being in Mississippi (which as far as I can tell might truly be the worst place in all of the US). But I was still as much of bully as a lot of other people, maybe more.
I don’t think that’s an isolated event.
It might just be that I’m a complete asshole, but I grew up in Mississippi feeling very isolated and estranged from everyone around me. I think I definitely felt like I was bullied when I was very young. But by high school and college, I was being outright toxic to people.
If I am generous to myself, a lot of that could be attributed to anxiety, depression, lack of examples of how to behave pro-socially in my life, being in Mississippi (which as far as I can tell might truly be the worst place in all of the US). But I was still as much of bully as a lot of other people, maybe more.
I don’t think that’s an isolated event.
In my school, the 'gifted/nerdy' group had significant (but not complete) overlap with the 'socially/athletically outgoing' group, with the 'aspy' kids sprinkled around and generally respected by their peers. A lot of the dichotomies being described in this thread are therefore alien to me.
The bigger divide was between the 'gifted/nerdy/popular/athletic' group and the 'prone to violence, nihilistic body modification and hard drug use' group. Those kids weren't cool though. Drug use, poor grades, and criminal records all disqualified people from participating in sports, which negatively impacted their ability to socialize.
I think sports are a big equalizer. Through a shared enthusiasm for a sport, a stereotypical 'aspy nerd' and 'popular jock' can come to understand and respect each other. I don't think there is much else in the public school system quite as effective at tearing down these barriers as a healthy athletics program.
The bigger divide was between the 'gifted/nerdy/popular/athletic' group and the 'prone to violence, nihilistic body modification and hard drug use' group. Those kids weren't cool though. Drug use, poor grades, and criminal records all disqualified people from participating in sports, which negatively impacted their ability to socialize.
I think sports are a big equalizer. Through a shared enthusiasm for a sport, a stereotypical 'aspy nerd' and 'popular jock' can come to understand and respect each other. I don't think there is much else in the public school system quite as effective at tearing down these barriers as a healthy athletics program.
Sounds like a good school.
In my home town, sports were incredibly divisive, and football was the worst. Teachers were expected to go easy on football players. Football players got mostly ignored for shoplifting and other misbehavior. Football players even excluded other football players if they seemed too nerdy. Football players dumped a swimming pool full of sand on student body officers during a school assembly. Every student was forced to attend pep rallies to promote the football games.
Not every athlete was an athhole, but the general tenor was violent and rude to anyone not in their peer group.
In my home town, sports were incredibly divisive, and football was the worst. Teachers were expected to go easy on football players. Football players got mostly ignored for shoplifting and other misbehavior. Football players even excluded other football players if they seemed too nerdy. Football players dumped a swimming pool full of sand on student body officers during a school assembly. Every student was forced to attend pep rallies to promote the football games.
Not every athlete was an athhole, but the general tenor was violent and rude to anyone not in their peer group.
I never had any enthusiasm for sport, though and felt trying hard to win at a sport is stupid. Always tried to sit everything out. On the other hand, I also felt trying hard to achieve good results in other subjects isn't worth the effort, since the material was mostly useless with the exception of math. But there I never had to try hard, though, I probably would have, if it was more challenging and also interesting.
In toxic environments, the individual is forced to choose to be a target or be a bully. You chose to be a bully to survive. That is expected. If you'd chosen to be a target, you might be dead.
Unfortunately, it's very difficult to unlearn those bully behaviors that enabled you to survive. Had you instead been able to focus your attention on developing your gifts and confidence, you would be much better off right now and society too, I imagine.
Unfortunately, it's very difficult to unlearn those bully behaviors that enabled you to survive. Had you instead been able to focus your attention on developing your gifts and confidence, you would be much better off right now and society too, I imagine.
I'm sure that happens, but it didn't in my cohort. If you whip a dog for a while, it'll fight. Whip it for long enough, though, and it will just lay down helpless. That's what I saw.
Do you have kids?
Suppose you have two. One's into javascript and dungeons and dragons. The other's not great academically. No good at football either, and they still behave in a slightly awkward way. But great person, all the same.
So, you condemn the latter child to the cesspit that is public life and protect the former? Or think up a better policy?
Suppose you have two. One's into javascript and dungeons and dragons. The other's not great academically. No good at football either, and they still behave in a slightly awkward way. But great person, all the same.
So, you condemn the latter child to the cesspit that is public life and protect the former? Or think up a better policy?
The gifted kids are bullied by their very nature, because they are different. They have abilities that create envy in others. That envy prompts bullying to neutralize their abundance.
Someone with abundance in a community of scarcity is a target for bullying. That bullying robs the individual and society of those gifts.
So, yes, we protect the gifted, precisely so their gifts survive to benefit all of society, including the bullies. That's the irony. The gifted want by their nature to share their gifts and do so -- even with the bullies and at their own expense.
The average individual is much less likely to be bullied and thus need less protection.
Someone with abundance in a community of scarcity is a target for bullying. That bullying robs the individual and society of those gifts.
So, yes, we protect the gifted, precisely so their gifts survive to benefit all of society, including the bullies. That's the irony. The gifted want by their nature to share their gifts and do so -- even with the bullies and at their own expense.
The average individual is much less likely to be bullied and thus need less protection.
I went to a Grammar school and am finishing a PhD. Pretty damn nerdy. These gifted wonder kids you speak of... you reckon they aren't going to bully? I was selected at the age of 11 and told how magnificent I was. Growing up was still tough.
"It'll all be ok if we keep away from the riff-raff" doesn't do anything but say "we can only really afford to educate X amount of kids". This lot are brick layers.
Of course who am I talking to? I don't know. Might be somebody who thinks gifted means Daddy has a yacht.
"It'll all be ok if we keep away from the riff-raff" doesn't do anything but say "we can only really afford to educate X amount of kids". This lot are brick layers.
Of course who am I talking to? I don't know. Might be somebody who thinks gifted means Daddy has a yacht.
I had a single mom with a government job. Being discovered as gifted saved my life. I am still bullied to this very day. Most recently I was fired by bullies for refusing to write illegal software and now the company could be in serious legal trouble.
Gifted people don't escape bullying by growing up and it has immeasurably costly ramifications for society at large.
Gifted people don't escape bullying by growing up and it has immeasurably costly ramifications for society at large.
Allowing kid A the opportunity to move at an accelerated pace with other high achieving kids does not affect the opportunity afforded to kid B. Education is not a zero-sum game.
But social status is a zero sum game and that’s the dirty little secret of the people opposed to tracking. They can’t seem to improve their own kids’ lot so they hurt other kids’ opportunities instead.
"The hope to change the world is a childish illusion. You have to change yourself."
Marie-Louise Von Franz
Marie-Louise Von Franz
Here's the opposite perspective: https://www.baltimoresun.com/opinion/bs-xpm-2012-02-06-bs-ed...
> But as the facts now show, smart kids don't always stay smart, and when they are bored or bullied or ridiculed or neglected, some turn off and some drop out. Thirty-plus years of experience and research into how these students learn has taught us that the academically able can and must be challenged and engaged, inspired and encouraged in order to cultivate their creativity, spirit of innovation, and passion for learning.
Here's IMHO a better perspective on how to "close the excellence gap" in NYC schools, in particular, by changing the way talent is identified and by using local norms. https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/episode-11-what-can-we...
Finally, here's a twist: Eliminating gifted programs disproportionally hurts poor parents since rich parents will just pay for any available opportunity to get their kid ahead.
> But as the facts now show, smart kids don't always stay smart, and when they are bored or bullied or ridiculed or neglected, some turn off and some drop out. Thirty-plus years of experience and research into how these students learn has taught us that the academically able can and must be challenged and engaged, inspired and encouraged in order to cultivate their creativity, spirit of innovation, and passion for learning.
Here's IMHO a better perspective on how to "close the excellence gap" in NYC schools, in particular, by changing the way talent is identified and by using local norms. https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/episode-11-what-can-we...
Finally, here's a twist: Eliminating gifted programs disproportionally hurts poor parents since rich parents will just pay for any available opportunity to get their kid ahead.
Right, so it raises the question: What is the relative importance of helping the best students verse helping the worst students?
Even if we solve the talent identification problem, SOME kids are going to be the lower achievers.... are we willing to sacrifice helping them do better to help the top achievers do their best? How much are we willing to sacrifice in either direction?
Even if we solve the talent identification problem, SOME kids are going to be the lower achievers.... are we willing to sacrifice helping them do better to help the top achievers do their best? How much are we willing to sacrifice in either direction?
Having grown up in public schools in a G&T cohort and participating in CTY/SET, I absolutely favor teaching all kids to the highest level of challenge they can benefit from. That’s going to mean some are challenged by simple arithmetic. Others by multi-variate calculus in 10th grade.
I think that necessarily means segregating the kids by ability in a subject, but I’m not married to that input or mechanism near as much as married to the outcome that every kid is appropriately challenged.
If challenging kid A results in a worse outcome for kid B, so be it.
I think that necessarily means segregating the kids by ability in a subject, but I’m not married to that input or mechanism near as much as married to the outcome that every kid is appropriately challenged.
If challenging kid A results in a worse outcome for kid B, so be it.
Having been a kid who moved around a fair bit, and was in the "gifted" (cor, I hate that word) programs when they were available, and in the regular classes when they weren't, I decry this false dilemma.
The truth of the matter is, I learned more and was more intellectually stimulated when I was in the regular classes. Because they let me burn through the homework more quickly, leaving more time in the evening to pursue my own projects and pursuits.
The gifted programs were certainly more difficult. But they largely achieved that by assigning more homework, and it was invariably crap work - at best, something that was much more interesting to the teacher than it was to me, and just as often pure busywork that was made artificially difficult for the sake of "challenging" me.
In some sense, I even found them insulting, and I found my parents' need to put me in them insulting, because the clear implication was that the only achievements of mine that mattered were ones that could be written down and certified by the school. Spending my time learning more musical instruments wasn't an option, because school would only give me a report card grade on one instrument at a time. Spending my time learning an additional language - perhaps a more challenging one than anything my school offered - wasn't an option, because school would only give me a report card grade in Spanish. Spending my time learning linear algebra so I could do 3D graphics programming (this was before OpenGL was really a thing, so you had to DIY) didn't count, because that wasn't on the list of kinds of math that had been blessed by the school's curriculum. It was absolute BS; from my perspective my personal interests were being subtly curtailed because they couldn't be pursued in a way that let my parents feel like they were Good Students™ vicariously through me.
And the worst of it is, I'm pretty sure parents and school systems are so busy stumbling over themselves to create these elitist selective enrollment programs that they trap both the kids who do get into them and everyone else into a local minimum. The very best classes I experienced in school weren't the "advanced" ones, they were the regular (on paper) ones that followed more of an inverted classroom model, where the lecture time in the classroom was kept to a minimum, so that more time could be reserved for working together on homework. And the very best of those was a math class, where those of us who had a relatively easier time following the textbooks and lectures could put that advantage to good use by then trying to explain the new concepts to our classmates who were having a harder time. It was better for me intellectually, because, unlike what a lot of gifted programs seem to believe (or at least did a few decades ago), depth of knowledge is at least as important as breadth of knowledge, and there's no better way to ensure you've mastered a subject than teaching it to others. And it was better from a mental health perspective, too, because it steered clear of turning school into this awful competitive tar pit where the students who are having an easier time are seen as making everyone else seem comparatively inferior due to an unearned natural talent.
The truth of the matter is, I learned more and was more intellectually stimulated when I was in the regular classes. Because they let me burn through the homework more quickly, leaving more time in the evening to pursue my own projects and pursuits.
The gifted programs were certainly more difficult. But they largely achieved that by assigning more homework, and it was invariably crap work - at best, something that was much more interesting to the teacher than it was to me, and just as often pure busywork that was made artificially difficult for the sake of "challenging" me.
In some sense, I even found them insulting, and I found my parents' need to put me in them insulting, because the clear implication was that the only achievements of mine that mattered were ones that could be written down and certified by the school. Spending my time learning more musical instruments wasn't an option, because school would only give me a report card grade on one instrument at a time. Spending my time learning an additional language - perhaps a more challenging one than anything my school offered - wasn't an option, because school would only give me a report card grade in Spanish. Spending my time learning linear algebra so I could do 3D graphics programming (this was before OpenGL was really a thing, so you had to DIY) didn't count, because that wasn't on the list of kinds of math that had been blessed by the school's curriculum. It was absolute BS; from my perspective my personal interests were being subtly curtailed because they couldn't be pursued in a way that let my parents feel like they were Good Students™ vicariously through me.
And the worst of it is, I'm pretty sure parents and school systems are so busy stumbling over themselves to create these elitist selective enrollment programs that they trap both the kids who do get into them and everyone else into a local minimum. The very best classes I experienced in school weren't the "advanced" ones, they were the regular (on paper) ones that followed more of an inverted classroom model, where the lecture time in the classroom was kept to a minimum, so that more time could be reserved for working together on homework. And the very best of those was a math class, where those of us who had a relatively easier time following the textbooks and lectures could put that advantage to good use by then trying to explain the new concepts to our classmates who were having a harder time. It was better for me intellectually, because, unlike what a lot of gifted programs seem to believe (or at least did a few decades ago), depth of knowledge is at least as important as breadth of knowledge, and there's no better way to ensure you've mastered a subject than teaching it to others. And it was better from a mental health perspective, too, because it steered clear of turning school into this awful competitive tar pit where the students who are having an easier time are seen as making everyone else seem comparatively inferior due to an unearned natural talent.
Nobody needs to be sacrificed!
The right way to do this is obviously that everyone gets an education adapted to their needs and talents!
That means special programs for the "gifted" as well as for the "not much with the book learning" kids.
A "one size fits all" education will always be a compromise that's maybe optimal for the median kid.
The right way to do this is obviously that everyone gets an education adapted to their needs and talents!
That means special programs for the "gifted" as well as for the "not much with the book learning" kids.
A "one size fits all" education will always be a compromise that's maybe optimal for the median kid.
A very good example of "win-win" scenarios that aren't just "isolate the smart kids" are classes built around group work and projects.
Group work means that more successful groups can probably get pretty far on their own without needing much teacher intervention, freeing teacher resources for less successful groups.
Group work also means students can help each other, and the "teaching" students can get experience in passing knowledge to others, the "taught" students also get attention and help from their peers (hopefully in ways that improve student relations more than harm them)
This kind of work can also be a bit freeform and usually ends in a "real" work product, so students can feel pride in making a thing, and in being in charge of what is going on.
The difficulties are mainly around evaluation and resources. It's hard to generalise evaluation of this in the same way as standardised testing does (which is more of a problem for means testing than for actually educating people).
Teachers also probably need to be more prepared for these kinds of things, because students will end up in a variety of situations that the teacher might not have ever seen before.
But the elephant in the room is just money. Try to do a robotics thing, and now you gotta buy a bunch of equipment. Same for lots of stuff involving computers. In other domains it could be easier (I had a math class that worked on this model, and the costs were basically the book and the calculator), but there's a need for money. Too many teachers are already fronting relatively inexpensive stuff like stationary.
Group work means that more successful groups can probably get pretty far on their own without needing much teacher intervention, freeing teacher resources for less successful groups.
Group work also means students can help each other, and the "teaching" students can get experience in passing knowledge to others, the "taught" students also get attention and help from their peers (hopefully in ways that improve student relations more than harm them)
This kind of work can also be a bit freeform and usually ends in a "real" work product, so students can feel pride in making a thing, and in being in charge of what is going on.
The difficulties are mainly around evaluation and resources. It's hard to generalise evaluation of this in the same way as standardised testing does (which is more of a problem for means testing than for actually educating people).
Teachers also probably need to be more prepared for these kinds of things, because students will end up in a variety of situations that the teacher might not have ever seen before.
But the elephant in the room is just money. Try to do a robotics thing, and now you gotta buy a bunch of equipment. Same for lots of stuff involving computers. In other domains it could be easier (I had a math class that worked on this model, and the costs were basically the book and the calculator), but there's a need for money. Too many teachers are already fronting relatively inexpensive stuff like stationary.
> Group work means that more successful groups
Very often, they try to "mix" the groups up and make each group a mix of ability. The inevitable result of that, is that the high ability students often feel like they have no choice but to do all the work. Do you want to get marked down because you include your peers' sub-standard work in the end product, or do you just replace it with higher standard work of your own?
Very often, they try to "mix" the groups up and make each group a mix of ability. The inevitable result of that, is that the high ability students often feel like they have no choice but to do all the work. Do you want to get marked down because you include your peers' sub-standard work in the end product, or do you just replace it with higher standard work of your own?
The low achievers don’t sit quietly. They scream. They commit assaults. They loudly tell jokes and laugh in the room while watching YouTube videos.
They’re not the same students. A single bad apple poisons a classroom.
They’re not the same students. A single bad apple poisons a classroom.
Why should talented kids be forced to sacrifice their progress and happiness to help the poor kids (or rather, for the odd chance it might help some poor kids)? That is tyranny, right there. The government is using their bodies, against their will.
If society wants to help poor kids, it should use tax money to pay for people to help those kids. Forcing other kids to give up their possible achievements is exploitation.
If society wants to help poor kids, it should use tax money to pay for people to help those kids. Forcing other kids to give up their possible achievements is exploitation.
> If society wants to help poor kids, it should use tax money to pay for people to help those kids. Forcing other kids to give up their possible achievements is exploitation.
And using tax money to pay for people to help talented kids is not exploitation?
And using tax money to pay for people to help talented kids is not exploitation?
I said "if society wants it". At least society has a democratic choice. I grant that it can still amount to exploitation for some people.
Also for society as whole perhaps even an economic argument could be made, like the benefits for society of helping those kids could be higher than the costs. Then in summary nobodies tax money would be misappropriated.
Also for society as whole perhaps even an economic argument could be made, like the benefits for society of helping those kids could be higher than the costs. Then in summary nobodies tax money would be misappropriated.
> are we willing to sacrifice helping them do better to help the top achievers do their best
It's not clear to me that separating more talented kids into their own groups and classes hurts less talented kids. What is your thinking here?
It's not clear to me that separating more talented kids into their own groups and classes hurts less talented kids. What is your thinking here?
That’s saying it is a zero sum game. Why is that the assumption?
It seems intuitive that separating students by aptitude/achievement would make it easier to teach the cohort effectively.
If the range of abilities is too wide in a group of students the teacher is going to be miserable and so are all the students who don’t fall within the range the program is optimized for.
It seems intuitive that separating students by aptitude/achievement would make it easier to teach the cohort effectively.
If the range of abilities is too wide in a group of students the teacher is going to be miserable and so are all the students who don’t fall within the range the program is optimized for.
>.... are we willing to sacrifice helping them do better to help the top achievers do their best? How much are we willing to sacrifice in either direction?
It is so strange reading this comment, as I know how Americans are primed to respond to it, and how precisely opposite my response is.
It is so strange reading this comment, as I know how Americans are primed to respond to it, and how precisely opposite my response is.
Care to share what your response is? I am not sure I know what the traditional American response is?
Look at how the US K-12 education system works in practice. This is probably a reasonable enough guide to what the populace want because of democracy. You see a system designed and run for the pretty average children with substantial investment in bringing up those who are academically behind, whether or not there’s any prospect of them becoming average or exceeding it. You see basically nothing spent on the most academically gifted, as such. If they’re lucky there’ll be streaming with honours or AP classes.
Special needs gets about 25% of K-12 education spending. Gifted and talented hovers around 1%.
Special needs gets about 25% of K-12 education spending. Gifted and talented hovers around 1%.
Miraca Gross, writing about Austrialia, says this:
"Two studies a decade apart (Start, John, and Strange, 1975; Start, 1985) surveyed every Australian tertiary institution which offered teacher education programmes. Each was contacted with a questionnaire relating to their teacher education offerings in four areas: mentally, physically, or emotionally handicapped children, migrant children, socio-economically deprived children, and gifted and talented children.
The situation regarding teacher preparation in gifted education was twice as positive in the mid-1980s as it had been in the mid-1970s. Nevertheless, in 1984, for every hour on teaching the gifted, student teachers had been exposed to 18 to 24 hours on teaching the disadvantaged. Furthermore, sessions on gifted education usually comprised one single-hour lecture in a general course, or elective units of three to six lectures. Whereas every institution had at least one compulsory unit or course on one or other form of disadvantage, no institution in Australia had a compulsory unit on gifted. One college replied to the survey saying that its students could consider the intellectually able as one topic in a comprehensive course, and approximately one lecture would be devoted to the area. The name of the course was "Controversies in Education" (Start, 1985)."
She says it's less bad in the United States—as of 1993. The figure you give isn't encouraging, though.
"Two studies a decade apart (Start, John, and Strange, 1975; Start, 1985) surveyed every Australian tertiary institution which offered teacher education programmes. Each was contacted with a questionnaire relating to their teacher education offerings in four areas: mentally, physically, or emotionally handicapped children, migrant children, socio-economically deprived children, and gifted and talented children.
The situation regarding teacher preparation in gifted education was twice as positive in the mid-1980s as it had been in the mid-1970s. Nevertheless, in 1984, for every hour on teaching the gifted, student teachers had been exposed to 18 to 24 hours on teaching the disadvantaged. Furthermore, sessions on gifted education usually comprised one single-hour lecture in a general course, or elective units of three to six lectures. Whereas every institution had at least one compulsory unit or course on one or other form of disadvantage, no institution in Australia had a compulsory unit on gifted. One college replied to the survey saying that its students could consider the intellectually able as one topic in a comprehensive course, and approximately one lecture would be devoted to the area. The name of the course was "Controversies in Education" (Start, 1985)."
She says it's less bad in the United States—as of 1993. The figure you give isn't encouraging, though.
Keep in mind the original post is an opinion piece with a political agenda, it is not evidence based.
There is no shortage of bad opinion pieces with all sorts of terrible politically driven opinions out there. This is one of them.
There is no shortage of bad opinion pieces with all sorts of terrible politically driven opinions out there. This is one of them.
I’ll give a short anecdote that might sway your opinion. I grew up poor in Baltimore City. I directly benefitted from the CTY program, where I was able to take accelerated math courses over the summer. My family didn’t pay a dime of the $3k+ per summer cost to attend. After several summers of CTY, I was able to take AP Calculus as a freshman in high school. I would not be who I am today without CTY.
I agree, that article written by the director of CTY is biased. And most who attended were rich kids, so maybe in aggregate their approach doesn’t make a difference. But it made a difference for me. CTY provided opportunities for me I never would have had otherwise.
I agree, that article written by the director of CTY is biased. And most who attended were rich kids, so maybe in aggregate their approach doesn’t make a difference. But it made a difference for me. CTY provided opportunities for me I never would have had otherwise.
I definitely noticed class differences in CTY my first time - there were kids who seemed like CTY was normal but for myself, I was blown away and felt like I was in another world. Eventually I realized these kids were also ones who traveled internationally a lot, or did science fair competitions regularly, played multiple musical instruments, were learning different languages like chinese and french, were legacy kids for ivy league parents, etc. Meanwhile I was the kid who was good at basketball and soccer during breaks because everyone else was a nerd.
The only stats in the opposite perspective are "30%-50% of 90th percentile students regress" which seems like regression to the mean, and smaller gains for minorities and low income students at high achievement levels. That's not a super compelling counterpoint.
This difference between tracked and untracked math experiences was illuminated recently in a survey we gave to San Francisco ninth-graders and ninth-graders across another large district, where all students are in tracked groups. The San Francisco students were significantly more positive about both mathematics and their own potential. Importantly, the San Francisco students were also significantly more likely than students in tracked groups to say that they enjoyed solving complex math problems, and that work was at the right level for them — neither too easy nor too hard.
So is the topic achievement, or is the topic their feelings?
In a Postmodern twist of language, we've rhetorically connected a statistic around feelings and a statistic around achievement, but those are two separate items.
They eliminated advanced math classes until 10th great? I'm EXTREMELY happy I'm old now, because when I was a kid ANY class I took with the average or the below average, I was bullied.
Some people are better thinkers, some people are better as leaders, fighters or lifters of boxes. I'm sorry, Postmodernists, we're not equal and never will be.
In NYC they're wanting to remove the gifted and talented classes not because they don't work, but because of racial disparities. The idea here is that we should all fail together, since equality is most easily achieved by trimming the top.
So is the topic achievement, or is the topic their feelings?
In a Postmodern twist of language, we've rhetorically connected a statistic around feelings and a statistic around achievement, but those are two separate items.
They eliminated advanced math classes until 10th great? I'm EXTREMELY happy I'm old now, because when I was a kid ANY class I took with the average or the below average, I was bullied.
Some people are better thinkers, some people are better as leaders, fighters or lifters of boxes. I'm sorry, Postmodernists, we're not equal and never will be.
In NYC they're wanting to remove the gifted and talented classes not because they don't work, but because of racial disparities. The idea here is that we should all fail together, since equality is most easily achieved by trimming the top.
Earlier in the article it addressed some achievement metrics for the same district:
>For instance, after San Francisco Unified de-tracked math, the proportion of students failing algebra fell from 40 percent to 8 percent and the proportion of students taking advanced classes rose to a third, the highest percentage in district history. Until 10th grade, students take the same mathematics classes. From 11th grade on, students can choose different pathways.
The author is indeed trying to connect feelings about ability and achievement. I'm not sure how this is postmodern.
>For instance, after San Francisco Unified de-tracked math, the proportion of students failing algebra fell from 40 percent to 8 percent and the proportion of students taking advanced classes rose to a third, the highest percentage in district history. Until 10th grade, students take the same mathematics classes. From 11th grade on, students can choose different pathways.
The author is indeed trying to connect feelings about ability and achievement. I'm not sure how this is postmodern.
I did a little digging into the source of that statistic. The statistic compares the number of 8th graders who failed Algebra 1 before the change to the number of 9th graders who failed Algebra 1 after the change.
What we really want to know is how many students have passed Algebra 1 by the end of 9th grade. Unfortunately, the statistic in the article is useless.
What we really want to know is how many students have passed Algebra 1 by the end of 9th grade. Unfortunately, the statistic in the article is useless.
Post your source.
> Students in the district who took Algebra 1 in eighth grade in 2014 (the last year it was offered as a stand-alone course to eighth-graders) had a repeat rate of 40 percent. By contrast, the first group of students who took Common Core Math 8 in eighth grade and Algebra 1 for the first time in ninth grade (and who graduated earlier this year) had an Algebra 1 repeat rate of 8 percent.
(emphasis mine)
https://hechingerreport.org/opinion-how-one-city-got-math-ri...
(emphasis mine)
https://hechingerreport.org/opinion-how-one-city-got-math-ri...
He is referring to cultural postmodernism, which is a worldview in which objective truth is not to be preferred to the perceived / experienced understanding (i.e. opinion) as to the truth. Especially when considering the socially or economically disadvantaged.
So while an adherent to a purely rational worldview might ask, "what the hell do feelings have to do with measuring academic performance?", a postmodernist would be glad to, say, include data about feelings (i.e. opinions) in an article and try to pass them off as evidence alongside hard, objective data, as though someone's feelings about grades and the grades themselves are both legitimate data from which to make decisions or design policy.
So while an adherent to a purely rational worldview might ask, "what the hell do feelings have to do with measuring academic performance?", a postmodernist would be glad to, say, include data about feelings (i.e. opinions) in an article and try to pass them off as evidence alongside hard, objective data, as though someone's feelings about grades and the grades themselves are both legitimate data from which to make decisions or design policy.
Very true, but 'feelings' and 'attitudes' do matter.
Kids who 'love math and solving problems' might be considerably more likely to apply themselves, do the work, have the confidence/grit to push a little bit and get through it.
Frankly 'attitude' is one of the bigger determinants in so many things.
So if we can somehow get kids to 'love math' my gosh this is a materially good outcome.
Kids who 'love math and solving problems' might be considerably more likely to apply themselves, do the work, have the confidence/grit to push a little bit and get through it.
Frankly 'attitude' is one of the bigger determinants in so many things.
So if we can somehow get kids to 'love math' my gosh this is a materially good outcome.
We agree entirely. Feelings matter for motivation and can underpin performance. But the rational view is that, at the end of the day, you must have an objective measure of performance, devoid of opinion and emotion. The kids' feelings matter when motivating them to perform, but when it comes time to evaluate said performance, feelings cannot matter one wit. If they do, you are no longer measuring performance, you're measuring something else.
> In NYC they're wanting to remove the gifted and talented classes not because they don't work, but because of racial disparities. The idea here is that we should all fail together, since equality is most easily achieved by trimming the top.
This is also the state policy in France. Classes for gifted people are absolutely taboo. There are numerous programs for low-achievers of immigrant suburbs and special needs children so the ministry knows they are differences between people but refuse to fund programs for smart kids. Moreover, the whole educational staff are leaning (far-)left and facts like genetics of intelligence are vehemently combatted. Source: was a smart kid that lost a lot of time at school; both parents in education.
This is also the state policy in France. Classes for gifted people are absolutely taboo. There are numerous programs for low-achievers of immigrant suburbs and special needs children so the ministry knows they are differences between people but refuse to fund programs for smart kids. Moreover, the whole educational staff are leaning (far-)left and facts like genetics of intelligence are vehemently combatted. Source: was a smart kid that lost a lot of time at school; both parents in education.
If our children were going to a secondary school without so-called "tracked math classes", we'd pull them out and send them to another school that had them. (Assuming of course that we could afford to do so, which I'm sure we personally would be able to, but I acknowledge not all parents are as fortunate.)
> So is the topic achievement, or is the topic their feelings?
While the whole piece is a mess, I think the statistic about confidence is provided as a manner of providing a potential explanation of the manner in which the policy change produced the performance change (for which statistics are also provided.)
While the whole piece is a mess, I think the statistic about confidence is provided as a manner of providing a potential explanation of the manner in which the policy change produced the performance change (for which statistics are also provided.)
I have to say that this result is wildly different from my experience and that of my children. It's boring to sit in class redoing a simple math problem just because someone wants to detrack math.
A friend of mine who is a teacher says that he has MORE discipline problems from the smart kids who aren't challenged enough.
The real secret should be to embrace independent, computer-mediated systems like Khan Academy. Everyone can move at their own pace. That's the best choice going forward. We have the technology. We have the ability to liberate our children to learn at their individual pace. I don't know why we cling to the old sage-on-a-stage model.
A friend of mine who is a teacher says that he has MORE discipline problems from the smart kids who aren't challenged enough.
The real secret should be to embrace independent, computer-mediated systems like Khan Academy. Everyone can move at their own pace. That's the best choice going forward. We have the technology. We have the ability to liberate our children to learn at their individual pace. I don't know why we cling to the old sage-on-a-stage model.
That's because, as per usual, they buried the lede.
First, they cherry-picked studies. Second, the few studies they referenced addressed overall school performance, not performance of the gifted students.
A perfectly valid way of reading this article is: gifted kids in de-tracked schools do the teachers' jobs for them by helping out the slower kids, which results in better school performance.
First, they cherry-picked studies. Second, the few studies they referenced addressed overall school performance, not performance of the gifted students.
A perfectly valid way of reading this article is: gifted kids in de-tracked schools do the teachers' jobs for them by helping out the slower kids, which results in better school performance.
It may be the case that the gifted kids are helping slower kids score better, but not actually learn better. At least, that's what it was like when I was a kid. Teachers would constantly pair up smart kids with dumb kids for group assignments or study, and the smart kids would end up doing all the work. This benefits the teachers when they're evaluated by how well students are scoring.
They usually use test results to measure achievement, though, and the smart kids can't do that for the other kids (at least assuming they aren't cheating)
Whenever teachers realize they're being evaluated based on some metric, they almost immediately begin gaming that metric and with that it ceases to be a good metric. I had teachers give a lot of "group tests", walk out of the classroom during tests, etc.
Standardized testing aims to correct this, but I think it's now considered by many teachers to be a joke. Even when exams are administered by independent proctors, teachers can still game the metric by "teaching the test" instead of imparting meaningful understanding of the material.
I think this is a subject that will continue to defy rigorous objective scientific analysis.
Standardized testing aims to correct this, but I think it's now considered by many teachers to be a joke. Even when exams are administered by independent proctors, teachers can still game the metric by "teaching the test" instead of imparting meaningful understanding of the material.
I think this is a subject that will continue to defy rigorous objective scientific analysis.
Tbh if you can "teach the test" without imparting meaningful understanding of the material, the test wasn't good the first place.
It turns out creating "good tests" isn't so easy. Generally tests suffer from one or more of the following: subjective grading, game-able question formats, or superficial coverage of the material.
Most tests administered by school teachers have very subjective grading. Basically every essay question has subjective grading, as do "show your work" math test questions. Multiple choice questions remove much of that subjectivity, but at the expense of a system that can often be gamed and often covers the subject matter in a superficial way.
If incentives are correctly aligned, tests with subjective grading can work reasonably well. But when tests taken by students are used to evaluate the performance of teachers, the incentives of the teachers align against you. For wide scale experimentation, you want a test that actually measures meaningful understanding of the subject matter and at the same time can be graded objectively and at the same time defies the attempts of students, teachers, and school administerators to subvert the results. That's basically the holy grail of tests.
Most tests administered by school teachers have very subjective grading. Basically every essay question has subjective grading, as do "show your work" math test questions. Multiple choice questions remove much of that subjectivity, but at the expense of a system that can often be gamed and often covers the subject matter in a superficial way.
If incentives are correctly aligned, tests with subjective grading can work reasonably well. But when tests taken by students are used to evaluate the performance of teachers, the incentives of the teachers align against you. For wide scale experimentation, you want a test that actually measures meaningful understanding of the subject matter and at the same time can be graded objectively and at the same time defies the attempts of students, teachers, and school administerators to subvert the results. That's basically the holy grail of tests.
It's definitely not trivial, but I think a solution would be to have tests that are, to a certain extent, subjective (I don't think they end up being that subjective in Math, and they'll always be subjective in English), and then they get graded by teachers from different schools.
Your experience is as the parent of a high achiever, it sounds like. This article is talking about the achievements of the entire class, which includes both high and low achievers.
It might be true that the higher achievers do better separated, but that the reduction in performance for the lower achievers more than offsets that. This makes sense, because the high achievers are probably going to do pretty well either way, and as you get to the higher test scores (on which performance is measured for these studies), there is less room to improve for the top students.
Of course, this is a complicated question. What is the relative importance of helping lower performing students verse maximizing the top performing students? This is not a question that can be answered with raw data alone, because it is a values question.
It might be true that the higher achievers do better separated, but that the reduction in performance for the lower achievers more than offsets that. This makes sense, because the high achievers are probably going to do pretty well either way, and as you get to the higher test scores (on which performance is measured for these studies), there is less room to improve for the top students.
Of course, this is a complicated question. What is the relative importance of helping lower performing students verse maximizing the top performing students? This is not a question that can be answered with raw data alone, because it is a values question.
In the absence of further information, a decent start might be to give each student with special needs (be they due to giftedness or disability) the same amount of effort or funding. At least in terms of federal funding (because it's easier to aggregate across the U.S.), one Google result[1] says: "The federal government does provide GT funding to school districts through the Jacob K. Javits Gifted and Talented Education program. The funding for the Javits program is $12 million annually, which equates to $2.50 to $4 per GT student in this country." I think I saw an article saying the current administration proposed canceling it, but it seems that hasn't happened.
Meanwhile, in terms of special education: "Ever since its initial enactment, the federal law has included a commitment to pay 40 percent of the average per student cost for every special education student. The current average per student cost is $7,552 and the average cost per special education student is an additional $9,369 per student, or $16,921. Yet, in 2004, the federal government is providing local school districts with just under 20 percent of its commitment rather than the 40 percent specified by the law, creating a $10.6 billion shortfall for states and local school districts."[2] Well, if they currently pay about 20% of $7500 per student, that comes out to $1500-ish.
So that's a difference of ~400x. Not that I think the federal government should be funding such things, but given that it is...
[1] https://ednote.ecs.org/do-we-really-need-to-fund-gifted-prog...
[2] http://www.nea.org/home/19029.htm
Meanwhile, in terms of special education: "Ever since its initial enactment, the federal law has included a commitment to pay 40 percent of the average per student cost for every special education student. The current average per student cost is $7,552 and the average cost per special education student is an additional $9,369 per student, or $16,921. Yet, in 2004, the federal government is providing local school districts with just under 20 percent of its commitment rather than the 40 percent specified by the law, creating a $10.6 billion shortfall for states and local school districts."[2] Well, if they currently pay about 20% of $7500 per student, that comes out to $1500-ish.
So that's a difference of ~400x. Not that I think the federal government should be funding such things, but given that it is...
[1] https://ednote.ecs.org/do-we-really-need-to-fund-gifted-prog...
[2] http://www.nea.org/home/19029.htm
The sage-on-a-stage also comes with socializing both during and after lessons, that can't be replaced with computers. If anything, I think it'd cause a lot more sadness than the current system.
Socializing generally isn't productive for gifted children past a certain point; when they're too far ahead of their peers, there's not much value that comes from it.
Somewhat. If the gifted kids can socialize among themselves then that certainly is more beneficial. In theory it'd be nice to only interact with people like oneself but I don't see that happening, learning how to interact with others is definitely not useless but indeed depends on the amount. Not sure I'd measure usefulness with some productivity metrics, that success = productive kid at that point in time, social skills are hard to measure like that.
Children aren't really the "others" of the adult world; they aren't fully grown enough, generally, to be of interest. Were the child or adolescent interacting with non-gifted adults, it would make sense. Not so much children.
I think they’d do better by taking the kids who understand the material and asking them to work with the kids who don’t. You learn as much by teaching as doing, if not more.
My daughter did this and it wore on her. She complained that she spent most of the math period helping the other kids, she liked it a little but doing it every day is a bunch of work & responsibility on a child.
It is very difficult to explain something which was obvious to you. Often you would not know how to decompose it, and above all, you would not know the pain points the others encounter, and why those points are painful. Teaching is a trade, after all.
> It is very difficult to explain something which was obvious to you.
I think that's the point. Teaching the kids who are performing well on something on how to distill their knowledge to others.
I think that's the point. Teaching the kids who are performing well on something on how to distill their knowledge to others.
This is explicitly why I did so well at Maths at A-Level. Once I could explain something to my less gifted peers, I had it. Completely and without the need to do the endless repetition I found so boring that is otherwise normally used to get good at solving those types of problems.
This is recipe for disaster for everyone.
The article seemed to imply detracking functionally comes along with teachers catering to the capabilities of individual students since the class is not defined by a particular education level.
A good teacher doesn't let you redo the same simple math problems. Mine didn't.
> We have the ability to liberate our children to learn at their individual pace
What makes you think society wants to allow that, let alone encourage it?
What makes you think society wants to allow that, let alone encourage it?
The SF algebra change is NOT a success. Most of the stats are cherrypicked and misleading.
> For instance, after San Francisco Unified de-tracked math, the proportion of students failing algebra fell from 40 percent to 8 percent and the proportion of students taking advanced classes rose to a third, the highest percentage in district history.
This compares the number of 8th graders who failed Algebra 1 before the change to the number of 9th graders who failed Algebra 1 after the change. These are apples to oranges numbers. The appropriate metric is the percent of 9th graders that have passed Algebra 1 in either 8th or 9th grade before and after the change.
The following is arguably the most important metric that is omitted. From another article:
> While more students are taking precalculus now, the enrollment in Advanced Placement calculus courses has declined by nearly 13 percent over the past two years.
> For instance, after San Francisco Unified de-tracked math, the proportion of students failing algebra fell from 40 percent to 8 percent and the proportion of students taking advanced classes rose to a third, the highest percentage in district history.
This compares the number of 8th graders who failed Algebra 1 before the change to the number of 9th graders who failed Algebra 1 after the change. These are apples to oranges numbers. The appropriate metric is the percent of 9th graders that have passed Algebra 1 in either 8th or 9th grade before and after the change.
The following is arguably the most important metric that is omitted. From another article:
> While more students are taking precalculus now, the enrollment in Advanced Placement calculus courses has declined by nearly 13 percent over the past two years.
jl2718(1)
When I was in middle school in the 90s, I think around 7th grade (~12yo), the school district experimented with a new way of organizing the student body where they separated us into six distinct, equally sized cohorts based on some evaluation of each student's performance and capability. From what I could tell it was rougly:
1. Gifted / clearly university-bound
2. Potential college prep
3. Community college
4. Normal underperformers
5. Little hope, likely will drop out
6. No future besides unemployment or prison
You took all your classes with your own cohort, rarely had to interact with anyone outside your cohort, and coursework was tailored to your level. It was glorious. I went from boring, slow classes and having to run and hide from tormentors to appropriately paced coursework and always interacting with friendly, nice, smart kids. My childhood mental health went on a noticeable upswing during this experiment. Too bad it ended around 3 years later and I was thrown back into the prison "general population" full of kids whose talents included arson and filing other kids' teeth down in the metal shop. Not sure why they ended the program, because it really made school bearable.
1. Gifted / clearly university-bound
2. Potential college prep
3. Community college
4. Normal underperformers
5. Little hope, likely will drop out
6. No future besides unemployment or prison
You took all your classes with your own cohort, rarely had to interact with anyone outside your cohort, and coursework was tailored to your level. It was glorious. I went from boring, slow classes and having to run and hide from tormentors to appropriately paced coursework and always interacting with friendly, nice, smart kids. My childhood mental health went on a noticeable upswing during this experiment. Too bad it ended around 3 years later and I was thrown back into the prison "general population" full of kids whose talents included arson and filing other kids' teeth down in the metal shop. Not sure why they ended the program, because it really made school bearable.
I truly don't know how to significantly improve the school experience for most kids short of just kicking out (or isolating) the bottom few percent, in terms of disruptiveness, violence, and GAF-ness, certainly by 6th or 7th grade, if not earlier. Which seems like a shitty solution and is legally untenable for a bunch of reasons I'm sure, but they're responsible for a large part of why school sucks so much and is so unproductive for everyone else. Any why teaching is so stressful and (at times, some places more than others) feels unrewarding.
I think there's an argument to be made that the disruptive kids need special attention just as much as the gifted students, albeit of a different kind. they don't seem to benefit from the standard "just pretend they're learning" approach.
They do need special attention. The problem is that the average teacher is simply not equipped to deal with their level of need. Kids at the very bottom of the performance distribution tend to have major issues at home, mental health issues, and may even have personality disorders in the dark triad. These kids need serious help from experts. That's too expensive though, so they aren't going to get it and everyone who has to interact with them ends up paying the price.
a quick Google search shows that public school teachers get paid as much as or more than a typical LCSW, so I'm not sure why getting these kids help would inherently be super expensive unless you want to also increase the adult-to-student ratio for them by a lot.
even if it's a bit more expensive per student, my guess is it would be very cost effective at improving outcomes for the rest of the kids.
even if it's a bit more expensive per student, my guess is it would be very cost effective at improving outcomes for the rest of the kids.
You would absolutely have to have more adults involved per student. My kid's HS has an average class size of 30 and some classes approaching 50 students. I can't imagine what a class of 35+ disruptors and only 1 instructor would look like but it wouldn't be pretty.
Ideally, something closer to the 5-1 ratio my district mandates for special ed classes would be more effective. These kids are going to need a lot of individualized attention if you want to help turn them around.
Ideally, something closer to the 5-1 ratio my district mandates for special ed classes would be more effective. These kids are going to need a lot of individualized attention if you want to help turn them around.
My high school in Australia (years 7-12) was structured similarly, there was a gifted program for the high performing students.
I don't think there were other tracks, it was pretty much just high achievers classes and than the regular pool of students.
I can remember vividly my parents wanted to send me to private (Catholic) high school after Primary school. I begged not to be separated from my existing friends who were all going to the local public school (which didn't have a great rep). It was only the presence of these gifted classes which convinced my parents to let me go to the public school. Both of my younger sisters were subsequently sent to Catholic School.
My parents pretty much followed the 'tiger parent' stereotype they put enormous pressure on me to succeed I remember I got 93% on a math test once and my Dad yelling at me and berating me for not doing well enough.
My friends thought my parents were insane, especially when I'd tell them I couldn't go to the movies because my parents were making me study for an upcoming test and things like that. None of my friend's parents seemed to give a shit about their grades.
I'm grateful for opportunities I had as a result of my upbringing, I got into the course I wanted at a good university etc. But looking back now decades later it feels like I was robbed of an adolescence. A lot of people have fond memories of their time in high school all that really stands out to me was enormous amount of pressure I felt, I'm honestly surprised I didn't have some sort of breakdown.
I can remember one of my good friends, who I'd be constantly competing with for top marks seemed to breeze through class with about 1/10th of the effort I put in he'd never study for any tests, he'd be writing up his homework 10 minutes before it was due and getting full marks. I always felt like such a fraud compared to him. I got good grades because my parents leaned so hard on me to put in the work, even at the time I was conscious of that. He got good grades because he was naturally gifted and school came 'easily' to him. Today he has two PHD and is still one of the most intelligent people I know.
I don't think there were other tracks, it was pretty much just high achievers classes and than the regular pool of students.
I can remember vividly my parents wanted to send me to private (Catholic) high school after Primary school. I begged not to be separated from my existing friends who were all going to the local public school (which didn't have a great rep). It was only the presence of these gifted classes which convinced my parents to let me go to the public school. Both of my younger sisters were subsequently sent to Catholic School.
My parents pretty much followed the 'tiger parent' stereotype they put enormous pressure on me to succeed I remember I got 93% on a math test once and my Dad yelling at me and berating me for not doing well enough.
My friends thought my parents were insane, especially when I'd tell them I couldn't go to the movies because my parents were making me study for an upcoming test and things like that. None of my friend's parents seemed to give a shit about their grades.
I'm grateful for opportunities I had as a result of my upbringing, I got into the course I wanted at a good university etc. But looking back now decades later it feels like I was robbed of an adolescence. A lot of people have fond memories of their time in high school all that really stands out to me was enormous amount of pressure I felt, I'm honestly surprised I didn't have some sort of breakdown.
I can remember one of my good friends, who I'd be constantly competing with for top marks seemed to breeze through class with about 1/10th of the effort I put in he'd never study for any tests, he'd be writing up his homework 10 minutes before it was due and getting full marks. I always felt like such a fraud compared to him. I got good grades because my parents leaned so hard on me to put in the work, even at the time I was conscious of that. He got good grades because he was naturally gifted and school came 'easily' to him. Today he has two PHD and is still one of the most intelligent people I know.
>I always felt like such a fraud compared to him. I got good grades because my parents leaned so hard on me to put in the work, even at the time I was conscious of that. He got good grades because he was naturally gifted and school came 'easily' to him.
I wonder if he might not have felt the same way because he put in so much less effort, but still did well. If you put in a lot of effort regardless of the outcome you can think back that you tried your best. If you half-ass it and things go well, then you might feel that you don't deserve it, but if things don't go well, then you feel bad for not trying.
Being able to work hard is a talent itself. In many cases it's the most important one.
I wonder if he might not have felt the same way because he put in so much less effort, but still did well. If you put in a lot of effort regardless of the outcome you can think back that you tried your best. If you half-ass it and things go well, then you might feel that you don't deserve it, but if things don't go well, then you feel bad for not trying.
Being able to work hard is a talent itself. In many cases it's the most important one.
And never being confronted with tasks that require hard work, during one's formative years, is a curse.
Interesting when I was diagnosed as dyslexic the doctor commented that I would have done better in a traditional classical education.
Ironically if we had stayed in Birmingham, my mother said that the would have tried to use my Grandfathers influence as an ex headmaster and tried to get me into King Edwards (Tolkien's old school) which is normally ranked no 1 or 2 in the UK
Ironically if we had stayed in Birmingham, my mother said that the would have tried to use my Grandfathers influence as an ex headmaster and tried to get me into King Edwards (Tolkien's old school) which is normally ranked no 1 or 2 in the UK
And what are the chances that influential, well connected parents will be sure that their kid ends up in the highest level whether they deserve it or not? I saw this all of the time in school.
On a related metric, if you look at the top 10 students in my public low rated high school in the south, the top 10 students (which I was one) were made up of kids whose parents were in the school system, one kid of a prominent lawyer, one was the daughter of a plant manager, and only one came from a poor background.
On a related metric, if you look at the top 10 students in my public low rated high school in the south, the top 10 students (which I was one) were made up of kids whose parents were in the school system, one kid of a prominent lawyer, one was the daughter of a plant manager, and only one came from a poor background.
I hate to say it but environmental circumstances and resources ensure it will always be "yes".
Probably even if we went to dystopian radical equality measures like mandating all kids be kept in government creches which would play hell with mammilian bonds and rightfully piss many people off.
Probably even if we went to dystopian radical equality measures like mandating all kids be kept in government creches which would play hell with mammilian bonds and rightfully piss many people off.
Almost like intelligence is inheritable. Fascinating.
Please don't post flamebait to HN. Comments here need to be better than shallow provocations.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Let me tell you a little story. My stepson didn’t make the cut off for the ACT to get into the college he wanted. Ten weeks and a $1000 later after paying for ten sessions with a college professor for a test prep course, he raised is score high enough to get in. Did he get “more intelligent” during those ten weeks?
When I left my private elementary school in the south and my mom who was teacher didn’t want me to go to the public middle school we were zoned to, she applied for me to go to the one local magnet school. She was told through official channels that there was a waiting list. She called up the admissions officer - she had tutored their son - and miraculously there was a place for me.
Did I get more “intelligent” after the phone call?
When I left my private elementary school in the south and my mom who was teacher didn’t want me to go to the public middle school we were zoned to, she applied for me to go to the one local magnet school. She was told through official channels that there was a waiting list. She called up the admissions officer - she had tutored their son - and miraculously there was a place for me.
Did I get more “intelligent” after the phone call?
It's possible to go a long way if you throw resources at underperforming students. Another method of going a long way is cheating. Neither affect your intelligence positively.
However, I have no reason to believe one of those two factors is at place when looking at the top ten students of a given school. With cheating you don't aim for the top, to make it easier for your cheating to remain undiscovered and there's no point to invest lots of resources into a student that isn't failing, since there's nothing to gain, at least from my perspective. Or is there a cash price tied be being in the top ten?
However, I have no reason to believe one of those two factors is at place when looking at the top ten students of a given school. With cheating you don't aim for the top, to make it easier for your cheating to remain undiscovered and there's no point to invest lots of resources into a student that isn't failing, since there's nothing to gain, at least from my perspective. Or is there a cash price tied be being in the top ten?
Do you think admission strictly based on university entrance exams, like most of the world seems to do, would be preferable also in the US?
Edit: got carried away, this want a discussion about universities and not thus really applicable. Still interested though.
Edit: got carried away, this want a discussion about universities and not thus really applicable. Still interested though.
How does that help? I just gave an example in the post you replied to showing how parents with means can send their children to tutorials to help them score better.
I can give you another example from my own life. Like I said previously, I graduated from a low rated public school on the small town south. I had the highest SAT score in the school and the second highest in the county (around 1000 graduating seniors). Not bragging, it was far from a perfect score. How much of that do you think is due to my natural brilliance and how much do you think it was due to my mom not only being a Math teacher who was teaching me high school math in middle school, but her also doing SAT tutorials in middle school and sitting down with me at night to help me solve SAT practice problems in high school?
I’m sure that my learning Latin in the magnet middle school that she called in a favor to get me into didn’t hurt me doing well on the English portion.
Besides, there was a recent well reported scandal about how rich people were able to game the system and bribe people to get their kids in school. Their punishment was a slap on the risk while a homeless poor Black lady is spending years in jail for enrolling her children in a school that was out of her district.
I can give you another example from my own life. Like I said previously, I graduated from a low rated public school on the small town south. I had the highest SAT score in the school and the second highest in the county (around 1000 graduating seniors). Not bragging, it was far from a perfect score. How much of that do you think is due to my natural brilliance and how much do you think it was due to my mom not only being a Math teacher who was teaching me high school math in middle school, but her also doing SAT tutorials in middle school and sitting down with me at night to help me solve SAT practice problems in high school?
I’m sure that my learning Latin in the magnet middle school that she called in a favor to get me into didn’t hurt me doing well on the English portion.
Besides, there was a recent well reported scandal about how rich people were able to game the system and bribe people to get their kids in school. Their punishment was a slap on the risk while a homeless poor Black lady is spending years in jail for enrolling her children in a school that was out of her district.
In the Netherlands, high schools are separated in three cohorts: practical education, higher education and academically oriented education. The latter are further divided in liberal arts tracks called 'Gymnasium' (notable for having Greek and Latin in the curriculum) and somewhat more practically oriented Atheneum. This has been the case since 1968.
And can you switch track or are you limited by your school choice in your teens
You must switch depending on your results. The school does have a big say in it, and if you switch schools your parents could possibly make a case for you.
Lowest track - 4 years Middle track - 5 years Highest track - 6 years
I started and spent 3 years in the 'middle' track, in my third year I failed my French and German classes so badly that the school required me to either re-do the third year of the middle track, or go to the 4th year of the lower track. The funny thing is that the 4th year of the lower track does not have French or German as a requirement.
Since my parents did not really cared or bothered to stand up for me (unlike another girl, whose parents lobbied and she was allowed to go through to the next year with worse grades) I chose to do the lower track. Finished that up easily and was given the choice to go to the 4th year of the middle track (without French or German, the 3rd year was the final year with that requirement). Finished the middle track with ease as well.
Lowest track - 4 years Middle track - 5 years Highest track - 6 years
I started and spent 3 years in the 'middle' track, in my third year I failed my French and German classes so badly that the school required me to either re-do the third year of the middle track, or go to the 4th year of the lower track. The funny thing is that the 4th year of the lower track does not have French or German as a requirement.
Since my parents did not really cared or bothered to stand up for me (unlike another girl, whose parents lobbied and she was allowed to go through to the next year with worse grades) I chose to do the lower track. Finished that up easily and was given the choice to go to the 4th year of the middle track (without French or German, the 3rd year was the final year with that requirement). Finished the middle track with ease as well.
You can. Typically by completing a 'lower' tier and starting in the final year of 'higher' tier.
This is called tracking and it's how school was done before the late 80s or early 90s, at which point it was declared wrong and evil and quite possibly racist. Interesting that they brought it back as an "experiment" with good results. It can never be implemented as anything more than an experiment these days because of the risk that too many students Of Color would end up in the bottom tracks.
This pseudo caste system was probably beneficial to you in the upper caste, but I don't think students in tier 3 and below saw their lives improve.
> This pseudo caste system was probably beneficial to you in the upper caste, but I don't think students in tier 3 and below saw their lives improve.
It is hardly a child's responsibility to suffer from the violence, bullying, and general disinterest in any academic achievement by another group of children.
It is hardly a child's responsibility to suffer from the violence, bullying, and general disinterest in any academic achievement by another group of children.
Why is it such a given that bullies are dumb?
In both middle school and high school, I was bullied incessantly by kids who were doing just fine, academically. Some of them went on to be quite successful people. Bullies nonetheless.
It would be so convenient (and karmically just) if all the awful kids went on to be dropouts and losers in life, but sometimes it doesn’t work out that way. Sometimes they’re smart kids, but they’re just assholes.
In both middle school and high school, I was bullied incessantly by kids who were doing just fine, academically. Some of them went on to be quite successful people. Bullies nonetheless.
It would be so convenient (and karmically just) if all the awful kids went on to be dropouts and losers in life, but sometimes it doesn’t work out that way. Sometimes they’re smart kids, but they’re just assholes.
> Why is it such a given that bullies are dumb?
I guess I was projecting from my own experience – my bullies were rather dumb, and I got rid of them when they dropped out.
I guess I was projecting from my own experience – my bullies were rather dumb, and I got rid of them when they dropped out.
So, I think tracking like this becomes unpopular because of treatment or perception of treatment of the kids in your higher numbered tracks.
Not a lot of parents are going to be thrilled to hear that their third (or 7th) grader is probably going to drop out. And they're going to wonder if the teachers are just going to give up on the kids in that track.
To do this in a way that would be perceived as positive for all tracks, you'd need to put more resources towards the higher numbered tracks, and make it clear that's what's going on. Smaller class sizes / more instructional aides / better teachers go to the kids who need more help; and put gifted kids into larger classes, because they'll probably manage fine.
Of course, smaller classes needs more teachers / money. It's cheaper to lump everyone together and hope the kids that get it help the other kids.
Also, you need to make it possible/easy to move tracks to adjust if screening got you in the wrong one. And be mindful of systemic bias influencing track selection.
Not a lot of parents are going to be thrilled to hear that their third (or 7th) grader is probably going to drop out. And they're going to wonder if the teachers are just going to give up on the kids in that track.
To do this in a way that would be perceived as positive for all tracks, you'd need to put more resources towards the higher numbered tracks, and make it clear that's what's going on. Smaller class sizes / more instructional aides / better teachers go to the kids who need more help; and put gifted kids into larger classes, because they'll probably manage fine.
Of course, smaller classes needs more teachers / money. It's cheaper to lump everyone together and hope the kids that get it help the other kids.
Also, you need to make it possible/easy to move tracks to adjust if screening got you in the wrong one. And be mindful of systemic bias influencing track selection.
> To do this in a way that would be perceived as positive for all tracks, you'd need to put more resources towards the higher numbered tracks, and make it clear that's what's going on. Smaller class sizes / more instructional aides / better teachers go to the kids who need more help
The problem is the reasons kids end up in the bad classes are all different.
Some kids have a learning disability that requires individualized attention. You need more teachers for that, or more parental involvement.
Other kids have a different learning disability where the only thing they need is more time to do the same work. You can put them in a normal sized class with other students who work at the same pace and everything is fine.
Some kids have a bad home life and what you can do for them is to get them into after school programs so they have more time at school to do homework and interact with other students and less time at home where everything sucks. But in that case you don't need smaller classes, you need longer hours. More after school programs.
Some kids used to have a bad home life and now it's better, but the experience affected them and now they act out. What those kids need is counseling.
Some kids have been exposed to environmental toxins at home that predispose them to violent behavior. They needed prevention -- lead abatement etc. -- because once it has already happened they're pretty much totally screwed and there is not a lot the school can do about it.
All of these kids have to be separated from the other kids or they'll disrupt the class, but "pour money on those classes" doesn't fix most of it because most of the problems don't come from the classroom to begin with. The school can't fix the fact that some of their kids are living in apartments with lead paint, so spending money on smaller class sizes for kids with lead poisoning is a lot less effective than spending the money on lead abatement.
Problems in school generally have causes (and solutions) outside of school. Treating the classroom is treating the symptom.
The problem is the reasons kids end up in the bad classes are all different.
Some kids have a learning disability that requires individualized attention. You need more teachers for that, or more parental involvement.
Other kids have a different learning disability where the only thing they need is more time to do the same work. You can put them in a normal sized class with other students who work at the same pace and everything is fine.
Some kids have a bad home life and what you can do for them is to get them into after school programs so they have more time at school to do homework and interact with other students and less time at home where everything sucks. But in that case you don't need smaller classes, you need longer hours. More after school programs.
Some kids used to have a bad home life and now it's better, but the experience affected them and now they act out. What those kids need is counseling.
Some kids have been exposed to environmental toxins at home that predispose them to violent behavior. They needed prevention -- lead abatement etc. -- because once it has already happened they're pretty much totally screwed and there is not a lot the school can do about it.
All of these kids have to be separated from the other kids or they'll disrupt the class, but "pour money on those classes" doesn't fix most of it because most of the problems don't come from the classroom to begin with. The school can't fix the fact that some of their kids are living in apartments with lead paint, so spending money on smaller class sizes for kids with lead poisoning is a lot less effective than spending the money on lead abatement.
Problems in school generally have causes (and solutions) outside of school. Treating the classroom is treating the symptom.
The problem is that you are picking winners at a young age based on bullshit metrics and favoritism.
The kids in the middle get screwed. How would you like to be tracked as only worthy of community college because of how you did in 4th or 5th grade?
The kids in the middle get screwed. How would you like to be tracked as only worthy of community college because of how you did in 4th or 5th grade?
Why would it have to be a one-time selection? Put kids in a class based on their current level of academic performance. If you're doing better than the other kids in your class then you go to the more advanced class.
It's a somewhat self fulfilling prophecy though, isn't it? The point of splitting kids out is that it will push them forward academically; by being held back because of their performance at one point, it makes it that much harder to excel further down the line to jump in to an accelerated class.
Why not take the top 20% (or whatever number) of the lower class, and give them a change to go to a higher class? and the same for the bottom 20% of the higher (who maybe aren't able to keep up) to go to the lower class.
Sounds good, but once you’re in the dumb caste you tend to stay.
It's possible the reason for that is that the original assessment was well-calibrated. But if you want to see more opportunities for misidentified students to prove their worth then why not argue for that instead of making every class the dumb class?
Did this "track" system run afoul of Civil Rights Act of 1964?
Sometimes disruptive kids need to be told they are capable and put with other people that are capable. Being told you're an idiot (lowest tier class) generally leads to a self fulfilling prophecy and that's a problem for society.
I was a trouble maker at school. In my final two years, my history teacher took a special interest in me for whatever reason. I now have a masters degree from Cambridge university. I was forced to study with the good kids (who actually tried to bully me ironically) but it worked out really well for me. I think a lot of disruptive boys can really benefit from a strong masculine teacher that forced them to see that there's a better way.
Also, there are some kids which are just going straight to jail. No idea how to deal with them.
I was a trouble maker at school. In my final two years, my history teacher took a special interest in me for whatever reason. I now have a masters degree from Cambridge university. I was forced to study with the good kids (who actually tried to bully me ironically) but it worked out really well for me. I think a lot of disruptive boys can really benefit from a strong masculine teacher that forced them to see that there's a better way.
Also, there are some kids which are just going straight to jail. No idea how to deal with them.
> I think a lot of disruptive boys can really benefit from a strong masculine teacher that forced them to see that there's a better way.
Absolutely. They're hungry for a leader who wants to lead them.
> Also, there are some kids which are just going straight to jail. No idea how to deal with them.
Those kids need serious individualized attention, which we normally "can't afford". Yet the cost of fixing it then and there is so much less than the cost of their future crimes and imprisonment.
It's both moral and economical to do the right thing, yet we kick that can down the road. Sigh.
Absolutely. They're hungry for a leader who wants to lead them.
> Also, there are some kids which are just going straight to jail. No idea how to deal with them.
Those kids need serious individualized attention, which we normally "can't afford". Yet the cost of fixing it then and there is so much less than the cost of their future crimes and imprisonment.
It's both moral and economical to do the right thing, yet we kick that can down the road. Sigh.
>I was a trouble maker at school.
Everyone has different motivators and different idea's of success. Some of those ideas can lead to being classed a criminal, but the state wont accept its own part it plays in people's failures. Until the state recognises this, you will continue to have failure's in people who shouldn't really be failing. Family can also contribute to a persons failure, you cant help it they have different idea's to your own but a lot of parents view their kids as possessions and they don't always accept a kid can form strong beliefs and desires from a young age even though we hear of people who have managed to pursue childhood dreams.
>Sometimes disruptive kids need to be told they are capable I'd agree with that, but having a suitable person to recognise this and guide them is hard, some benefit from a hands off approach others benefit from a hands on coaching position. Out of all the secondary school teachers only 1 would defend me in the staff room, I really pushed the boundaries and challenged people even teachers, but anyone will know cognitive dissonance can create powerful anger in one or more people. I don't think the UK is geared up to educating and exploiting the talent of each individual to their max yet but I hold out hope. >I think a lot of disruptive boys can really benefit from a strong masculine teacher Certainly at primary school I gave female teachers a hard time especially if they didn't "flirt" with me and yes kids can have feelings at that age largely controlled by oxytocin imo, but I think it was a respect to the hidden but generally controlled anger you would sometimes from older male teachers, it was a shocking sight in some ways because older people are generally more laid back so to see them lose their temper was more of a shock than a younger adult who lost their temper more frequently. I also respected the older teachers more than the young teachers, whilst at primary school (6-7age), I am supposed to have caused a young female teacher to have had a nervous breakdown which perhaps backs this idea up, but I came from a very strict background where extreme corporal punishment was also the norm. Even at primary school I was very competitive, often completing work in the classroom first then disrupting the rest of the class as I hated having to sit in silence. When the teachers started setting me extra work to keep me occupied, that lasted for a few days as there was no extra benefit, but it proves some primary school kids can be highly motivated and quite likely the most disruptive. I wrote my first program on a ZX Spectrum one summer around 7-8yrs when it first came out because student neighbour had one and was studying computer science at Uni. He taught me to write basic programs. I didn't know what I was doing was considered hard or difficult because I hadn't been socially conditioned into thinking it was hard, here was something novel and fun which fitted in with the scifi like Dr Who/Star Wars I liked to watch. That I think is an important point, kids learn when its fun, if you have everyone including the teacher saying we are going to learn some hard maths, physics or sciences, the teacher, parents and older peers have subconsciously created a barrier to learning in the classroom. Its why we need to be careful what we say around kids because they are sponges for knowledge and we should be exploiting that better, but I think AI will be taking over soon, which is my primary interest. Cambridge is nice, could have gone, but education held me back imo so I pursued my own non educational path. Do I need those pieces of papers, no, I work for myself because no one has yet to build a general AI and so no one can teach people how to build one. Having a belief in yourself is also important which can be hard some days when things don't go right and then it can be easy to blame others for our own failures which I see a lot of in this thread. Noone will do it for us, we need to do it ourselves, but getting the right environment to make that happen can be hard and we don't always recognise what is a bad environment for us, in fact that can sometimes take years to spot so having periodic times of reflection can be a good thing when looking for ways to do things better and trying to be the best in the world!
Everyone has different motivators and different idea's of success. Some of those ideas can lead to being classed a criminal, but the state wont accept its own part it plays in people's failures. Until the state recognises this, you will continue to have failure's in people who shouldn't really be failing. Family can also contribute to a persons failure, you cant help it they have different idea's to your own but a lot of parents view their kids as possessions and they don't always accept a kid can form strong beliefs and desires from a young age even though we hear of people who have managed to pursue childhood dreams.
>Sometimes disruptive kids need to be told they are capable I'd agree with that, but having a suitable person to recognise this and guide them is hard, some benefit from a hands off approach others benefit from a hands on coaching position. Out of all the secondary school teachers only 1 would defend me in the staff room, I really pushed the boundaries and challenged people even teachers, but anyone will know cognitive dissonance can create powerful anger in one or more people. I don't think the UK is geared up to educating and exploiting the talent of each individual to their max yet but I hold out hope. >I think a lot of disruptive boys can really benefit from a strong masculine teacher Certainly at primary school I gave female teachers a hard time especially if they didn't "flirt" with me and yes kids can have feelings at that age largely controlled by oxytocin imo, but I think it was a respect to the hidden but generally controlled anger you would sometimes from older male teachers, it was a shocking sight in some ways because older people are generally more laid back so to see them lose their temper was more of a shock than a younger adult who lost their temper more frequently. I also respected the older teachers more than the young teachers, whilst at primary school (6-7age), I am supposed to have caused a young female teacher to have had a nervous breakdown which perhaps backs this idea up, but I came from a very strict background where extreme corporal punishment was also the norm. Even at primary school I was very competitive, often completing work in the classroom first then disrupting the rest of the class as I hated having to sit in silence. When the teachers started setting me extra work to keep me occupied, that lasted for a few days as there was no extra benefit, but it proves some primary school kids can be highly motivated and quite likely the most disruptive. I wrote my first program on a ZX Spectrum one summer around 7-8yrs when it first came out because student neighbour had one and was studying computer science at Uni. He taught me to write basic programs. I didn't know what I was doing was considered hard or difficult because I hadn't been socially conditioned into thinking it was hard, here was something novel and fun which fitted in with the scifi like Dr Who/Star Wars I liked to watch. That I think is an important point, kids learn when its fun, if you have everyone including the teacher saying we are going to learn some hard maths, physics or sciences, the teacher, parents and older peers have subconsciously created a barrier to learning in the classroom. Its why we need to be careful what we say around kids because they are sponges for knowledge and we should be exploiting that better, but I think AI will be taking over soon, which is my primary interest. Cambridge is nice, could have gone, but education held me back imo so I pursued my own non educational path. Do I need those pieces of papers, no, I work for myself because no one has yet to build a general AI and so no one can teach people how to build one. Having a belief in yourself is also important which can be hard some days when things don't go right and then it can be easy to blame others for our own failures which I see a lot of in this thread. Noone will do it for us, we need to do it ourselves, but getting the right environment to make that happen can be hard and we don't always recognise what is a bad environment for us, in fact that can sometimes take years to spot so having periodic times of reflection can be a good thing when looking for ways to do things better and trying to be the best in the world!
I'd just hazard to say that the current school system is not very functional.
It puts kids through a lot of unpleasant experiences, requiring to exert a lot of effort and spend a lot of time. The problem is that not so much of that effort, discomfort, and time is due to learning new and useful stuff.
Instead, some kids waste time bored when they are ahead of the class, some waste time clueless when they are way behind the class. Quite some kids spend effort on fending off bullies, while other kids attain toxic experience of being successful bullies.
Most of the kids also have a very vague idea why are they studying particular stuff, hoping that maybe it will all fall in place when they go to college, or just hope to pass through it all and forget it after graduating.
Teaching children is what we, as a society, haven't yet figured out well enough.
It puts kids through a lot of unpleasant experiences, requiring to exert a lot of effort and spend a lot of time. The problem is that not so much of that effort, discomfort, and time is due to learning new and useful stuff.
Instead, some kids waste time bored when they are ahead of the class, some waste time clueless when they are way behind the class. Quite some kids spend effort on fending off bullies, while other kids attain toxic experience of being successful bullies.
Most of the kids also have a very vague idea why are they studying particular stuff, hoping that maybe it will all fall in place when they go to college, or just hope to pass through it all and forget it after graduating.
Teaching children is what we, as a society, haven't yet figured out well enough.
I always feel like my most valuable lessons from school was about how to live and interact with people of different types. I learned academic stuff outside of school... it was learning to deal with dumb people, bullies, smart jerks, dumb teachers, stupid rules, etc that were the lessons most important to my life.
It depends on your support system when you're a kid/teen. Facing stress and challenges when you're unable to handle them can cause irreversible trauma. Some people would be better off learning to face them when they are adults.
I had a relatively easy high school experience compared to many—almost no physical bullying, very little bullying otherwise, ran with a couple friend groups outside my almost-the-nerdiest-bunch-but-not-quite primary group that had a kind of light-alternative "cool" factor, school was decent and supportive by local standards at least, happened to pick up weight lifting in junior high and stuck with it so got pretty damn cut rather than continuing down the path of lard—but it was still easily the hardest four years of my life so far (now entering middle age, have multiple kids, a job, all that adult stuff).
College was like a vacation afterward. People mostly don't do a bunch of stupid, mean, disruptive bullshit, and if they do you're not expected to just put up with it? 15ish hours in class and you can arrange your schedule for a mix of hard and easy classes to come out way under the ~45-50hrs/wk of in-class and homework/study time of high school, plus you can usually figure a way not to have to get up before the fucking sun at least 2-3 days of the week, if not all of them? If you need to whizz you just... go? If you are sick or just need a mental health day you just send an email or three and rest, and it may mean a little more work later but no-one busts your balls over it as long as you don't do it too much? What is this, paradise?
It was shocking how much less stressful it was. It truly kinda messed me up for a while, just not understanding how to function outside the pressure-cooker of high school. The socialization there had almost nothing to do with how adults relate to one another in the real world, and the constantly high social stress levels, tight and absolute control by adults, and inability to make any reasonable or ordinary effort to get out of that plainly-very-bad situation, were insane compared to most of the "adult" world.
No wonder so many teens are depressed. School is really awful. Like, structurally so. In the best case. The first few months with a newborn, but after you've gone back to work so are trying to do both things, approach but are not quite as stressful, overall, as high school, in the typical case. I'm not kidding.
College was like a vacation afterward. People mostly don't do a bunch of stupid, mean, disruptive bullshit, and if they do you're not expected to just put up with it? 15ish hours in class and you can arrange your schedule for a mix of hard and easy classes to come out way under the ~45-50hrs/wk of in-class and homework/study time of high school, plus you can usually figure a way not to have to get up before the fucking sun at least 2-3 days of the week, if not all of them? If you need to whizz you just... go? If you are sick or just need a mental health day you just send an email or three and rest, and it may mean a little more work later but no-one busts your balls over it as long as you don't do it too much? What is this, paradise?
It was shocking how much less stressful it was. It truly kinda messed me up for a while, just not understanding how to function outside the pressure-cooker of high school. The socialization there had almost nothing to do with how adults relate to one another in the real world, and the constantly high social stress levels, tight and absolute control by adults, and inability to make any reasonable or ordinary effort to get out of that plainly-very-bad situation, were insane compared to most of the "adult" world.
No wonder so many teens are depressed. School is really awful. Like, structurally so. In the best case. The first few months with a newborn, but after you've gone back to work so are trying to do both things, approach but are not quite as stressful, overall, as high school, in the typical case. I'm not kidding.
Man, your highschool experience sounds totally different than mine. Highschool wasn't always great, but it was mostly ok and I had a lot of good times. I wasn't popular, but had good friends.
I am also a middle aged guy with a couple of kids, and I think raising children is way more stressful than highschool ever was.
I am also a middle aged guy with a couple of kids, and I think raising children is way more stressful than highschool ever was.
There's more worry with kids, in my experience, by a long shot. More responsibility. Less crushing grind (though lots, to be clear). And it's better motivated than high school, that having a disorienting and disheartening mix of deadly seriousness (so you're meant to believe, anyway) and complete make-believe with the lines always shifting and blurring. That helps make the trade-offs of having kids far less oppressive than high school, I think.
Good thing that you were able to extract the lessons!
Some people, when repeatedly thrown into a pool, learn how to swim. Unfortunately, some don't.
Some people, when repeatedly thrown into a pool, learn how to swim. Unfortunately, some don't.
This (opinion) article seems to be making the claim that separating out all of the top kids makes the group not selected perform worse.
(The measurement of "achievement" used is percentage of students failing a rudimentary algebra class and percentage of students enrolling in an advanced mathematics class)
This seems uncontroversial -- the smart kids will benefit the rest by their presence, and being labelled as not-smart probably doesn't help achievement very much.
But the purpose of separating out the really gifted kids was never for the benefit of the folks that couldn't cut it -- it was for the benefit of the gifted kids so that they could actually achieve at the level of their ability.
It seems to me quite uncontroversial that removing all of the disruptive kids and eliminating all of the remedial study time would aid students that are both interested and able to achieve.
(The measurement of "achievement" used is percentage of students failing a rudimentary algebra class and percentage of students enrolling in an advanced mathematics class)
This seems uncontroversial -- the smart kids will benefit the rest by their presence, and being labelled as not-smart probably doesn't help achievement very much.
But the purpose of separating out the really gifted kids was never for the benefit of the folks that couldn't cut it -- it was for the benefit of the gifted kids so that they could actually achieve at the level of their ability.
It seems to me quite uncontroversial that removing all of the disruptive kids and eliminating all of the remedial study time would aid students that are both interested and able to achieve.
I actually wonder what's up with bullying in US schools.
I grew up in Moscow, Russia in the 90ies (many people were not well off to say the least) and I was both super nerdy and extremely eh, daring (I would talk back to other kids who were much stronger/more popular than me all the time etc.). Sure, I was not popular, yet I was bullied lightly and almost never physically, mostly by a couple classmates who were just kinda generally messed up (interestingly enough both of them are software developers now, as far as I know), and in total perhaps for 2-3 years in late middle school (I think). The bullying just kinda never happened; I never thought much of that until I read stories like the ones here.
Sure, I hear it was worse outside of Moscow, but even in Moscow an average student's family in the 90ies was way poorer than say in Ohio. Outside of Moscow it's not even comparable. And yet, the level of bullying was probably still lower than what it seems to be in any average American school.
What's up with that?
I grew up in Moscow, Russia in the 90ies (many people were not well off to say the least) and I was both super nerdy and extremely eh, daring (I would talk back to other kids who were much stronger/more popular than me all the time etc.). Sure, I was not popular, yet I was bullied lightly and almost never physically, mostly by a couple classmates who were just kinda generally messed up (interestingly enough both of them are software developers now, as far as I know), and in total perhaps for 2-3 years in late middle school (I think). The bullying just kinda never happened; I never thought much of that until I read stories like the ones here.
Sure, I hear it was worse outside of Moscow, but even in Moscow an average student's family in the 90ies was way poorer than say in Ohio. Outside of Moscow it's not even comparable. And yet, the level of bullying was probably still lower than what it seems to be in any average American school.
What's up with that?
In Russia, do you stay together with your class all throughout high school? That is, did you share a core set of classes with a set of about 25 people for four years, with only certain elective classes where you would be split up (like music or art)?
If you do, I think that's the difference. Here in America, depending on the size of the school, every year there is no core group you share most classes with. You sign up for classes, and sometimes friends choose to stay together, but otherwise most classes come with a set of people that is likely to be selected from the whole grade. There are academic tracks for high/medium/low achievement in Math, English, Science, etc., but even in medium-sized schools you could have a class with a significant percentage of the students in the school every year. Some schools are quite large.
I went to high school in both Croatia and America, Croatia having fixed classes where students stayed with their cohort year after year, and I was surprised how different the social environment felt. Even for the more socially awkward people, people weren't really rejected or bullied-- because you would have to see that person for the next N years of your life. Whereas in America, "fuck that guy, I only had a health class with him once, his voice is annoying."
If you do, I think that's the difference. Here in America, depending on the size of the school, every year there is no core group you share most classes with. You sign up for classes, and sometimes friends choose to stay together, but otherwise most classes come with a set of people that is likely to be selected from the whole grade. There are academic tracks for high/medium/low achievement in Math, English, Science, etc., but even in medium-sized schools you could have a class with a significant percentage of the students in the school every year. Some schools are quite large.
I went to high school in both Croatia and America, Croatia having fixed classes where students stayed with their cohort year after year, and I was surprised how different the social environment felt. Even for the more socially awkward people, people weren't really rejected or bullied-- because you would have to see that person for the next N years of your life. Whereas in America, "fuck that guy, I only had a health class with him once, his voice is annoying."
I think it depends upon the school system in the United States [1]. I was with the same group of friends starting with the 5th grade (9-10 years old) through 12th grade (18 years old, last grade before college). It just so happened that not only did all my friends live in the same school district [2] but also in the same school boundary [3]. And the high school I attended was quite large (nearly 2,000 students; 450 in my graduating class alone).
[1] Most school systems in the United States are vary by county to county. There's some oversight at the state and federal levels, but the higher up the government, the less oversight, generally speaking.
[2] I think it was the 3rd largest in the country. Large enough to be split administratively into three sub-districts.
[3] I was supposed to attend a different high school from my friends because of where I lived at the time, but the boundaries for high school shifted and I ended up attending the same high school as the rest of my friends. Strange now that I think about it, because of the three high schools in the area, it was the furthest one.
[1] Most school systems in the United States are vary by county to county. There's some oversight at the state and federal levels, but the higher up the government, the less oversight, generally speaking.
[2] I think it was the 3rd largest in the country. Large enough to be split administratively into three sub-districts.
[3] I was supposed to attend a different high school from my friends because of where I lived at the time, but the boundaries for high school shifted and I ended up attending the same high school as the rest of my friends. Strange now that I think about it, because of the three high schools in the area, it was the furthest one.
People still get bullied today for sure, but it is less than it was 30 years ago. There are kids today who grow up and have never gotten into a fist fight. This is incredible to me because as a child most of the boys would fight now and then.
Why does bullying appear to be more prevalent in the United States. I can only take guesses.
First guess would be because there has long been (since the founding) a strong vein of social darwinism in the US. For a very long time the idea of "rugged individualism" was held up as the model citizen. Independent, able to take care of him or herself without depending upon the authorities/government, etc. There is a fine line between "rugged individualism" and social darwinism.
Second, people in the US have long been taught to break the rules. We idolize rule breakers, rebels, and teach a general distrust of authority. In the US this attitude really resonates with the poor, as the systems we have set up do not serve them well. If you are wealthy or gifted it behooves you to follow the rules and use the systems put in place.
Third, maybe self-obsession is a factor. We encourage children to find themselves. Reflect on themselves. Figure out what is best for them. We don't often tell our young people to think of others, and even those that are taught to think of others are taught to the think of others in a patronizing, not empathizing way.
Finally, it might be the result of America's melting pot. We have always been a country of many cultures living together. The Italians, Germans, Irish, and later Hispanics, Africans, etc. all used to fight with each other in school. Today differences are more due to income and family status.
Why does bullying appear to be more prevalent in the United States. I can only take guesses.
First guess would be because there has long been (since the founding) a strong vein of social darwinism in the US. For a very long time the idea of "rugged individualism" was held up as the model citizen. Independent, able to take care of him or herself without depending upon the authorities/government, etc. There is a fine line between "rugged individualism" and social darwinism.
Second, people in the US have long been taught to break the rules. We idolize rule breakers, rebels, and teach a general distrust of authority. In the US this attitude really resonates with the poor, as the systems we have set up do not serve them well. If you are wealthy or gifted it behooves you to follow the rules and use the systems put in place.
Third, maybe self-obsession is a factor. We encourage children to find themselves. Reflect on themselves. Figure out what is best for them. We don't often tell our young people to think of others, and even those that are taught to think of others are taught to the think of others in a patronizing, not empathizing way.
Finally, it might be the result of America's melting pot. We have always been a country of many cultures living together. The Italians, Germans, Irish, and later Hispanics, Africans, etc. all used to fight with each other in school. Today differences are more due to income and family status.
What's up with that? Bullies go after the weak. You describe yourself as daring, in that you'd talk back if provoked. You weren't their target demographic.
My gf is from an ex-ussr country and I also have a lot of friends from Russia/other USSR countries.
I also have a kid that has been identified as gifted (tests give without a margin of error IQ well above 130) and bullied.
I'm from Western Europe (Portugal) but I would assume it is similar in the US/UK and other countries. The main difference I see and talk with 'eastern' europeans and westerns is the sense of community and civility. Whether you agree with communism or not, with USSR or not, there was (and still is in most places, but changing) a sense of community and the greater good. Parents knew each other and each other kids. I grew up just after my country left a dictatorship and in a more tightly knitted group. I knew if I ever bullied/hit a kid in school my parents would find out about it and most likely I would get a beating. I would also probably share a sport or some activity with them even if they weren't in my class. Nowadays here kids and parents in general don't have this relationship, which I think makes much easier for bullies to appear. If your parents met on Friday for coffee and they talked about you bullying their kid, it would be an issue for you, but now, kids have no sense of 'consequence' because their own parents don't care so much or have a sense that what is going on is affecting others (since they aren't in any kind of social circles).
I have seen this change nowadays in Poland, Lithuania and Latvia (not sure about Moscow but I can ping some friends there) and the idea of individualism is starting to gain there (as it gained here) and more problems are arising as well in those countries in the last decade.
my two cents
I also have a kid that has been identified as gifted (tests give without a margin of error IQ well above 130) and bullied.
I'm from Western Europe (Portugal) but I would assume it is similar in the US/UK and other countries. The main difference I see and talk with 'eastern' europeans and westerns is the sense of community and civility. Whether you agree with communism or not, with USSR or not, there was (and still is in most places, but changing) a sense of community and the greater good. Parents knew each other and each other kids. I grew up just after my country left a dictatorship and in a more tightly knitted group. I knew if I ever bullied/hit a kid in school my parents would find out about it and most likely I would get a beating. I would also probably share a sport or some activity with them even if they weren't in my class. Nowadays here kids and parents in general don't have this relationship, which I think makes much easier for bullies to appear. If your parents met on Friday for coffee and they talked about you bullying their kid, it would be an issue for you, but now, kids have no sense of 'consequence' because their own parents don't care so much or have a sense that what is going on is affecting others (since they aren't in any kind of social circles).
I have seen this change nowadays in Poland, Lithuania and Latvia (not sure about Moscow but I can ping some friends there) and the idea of individualism is starting to gain there (as it gained here) and more problems are arising as well in those countries in the last decade.
my two cents
zebby(3)
Bogus headline.
"Separating gifted from non-gifted children hasn't led to better overall achievement of both groups combined."
It says nothing about whether the streamed gifted children do better than if they are not streamed it says much about those not deemed gifted doing worse.
(Just quietly, I'd suspect that given the choice of having your child streamed as gifted or not the best thing to do is to put them with the best teacher(s) - who will handle whatever psychological downsides there are of whatever that is).
"Separating gifted from non-gifted children hasn't led to better overall achievement of both groups combined."
It says nothing about whether the streamed gifted children do better than if they are not streamed it says much about those not deemed gifted doing worse.
(Just quietly, I'd suspect that given the choice of having your child streamed as gifted or not the best thing to do is to put them with the best teacher(s) - who will handle whatever psychological downsides there are of whatever that is).
Getting classified as G&T is a joke and severely damaging. All it means is your parents taught you to read a little earlier than most other kids. It's mostly about giving your parents and school administrators bragging rights. Everyone calls you a genius for the next 10 or 12 years. You incorporates that as the most important part of your identity. Then people level out. You aren't the best at everything anymore. Some classes actually get hard. You graduate in the top 10%, but not the top 1%. Your core identity shatters. You are smart, but there are lots of smart people and you really aren't that special. Suddenly you are emotionally 10 years behind the people how figured that out in middle school. Hopefully you can pull out of the spiral and live a normal life.
Agreed. This thread showed me a new level. Top comment: "I was fourth picked for g&t. First and second pick ended up being quite successful, as did the third picked." I don't know if it's normal to know everyone's ranking (one other commenter knew their own rank), but it doesn't sound healthy. Feels like it would compound the problems you mentioned -- not only were you G&T, you were 2nd-best of the G&T... until one day you're barely average, let alone in the top 2.
It's hard to find this sort of op-ed convincing when it includes hard-to-interpret imprecise word-salad like:
> Eight Bay Area school districts found similar results when they de-tracked middle-school mathematics and provided professional development to teachers. In 2014, 63 percent of students were in advanced classes, whereas in 2015 only 12 percent were in advanced classes and everyone else was taking Math 8. The overall achievement of the students significantly increased after de-tracking. The cohort of students in eighth-grade mathematics in 2015 were 15 months ahead of the previous cohort of students who were mainly in advanced classes.
Huh? What's "Math 8"? How was "overall achievement" measured?
How could decreasing the proportion of students in "advanced classes" from 63% to 12% result in a "cohort of students" that is "15 months ahead" of the students who were in "advanced classes"? (What definitions of "advanced" could possibly mean 15 months behind "non-advanced" coursework?)
If there's a strong case, and the writer understands it, it would be explained better than this – and probably include tables & graphs, rather than just rambling assertions like the above paragraph.
> Eight Bay Area school districts found similar results when they de-tracked middle-school mathematics and provided professional development to teachers. In 2014, 63 percent of students were in advanced classes, whereas in 2015 only 12 percent were in advanced classes and everyone else was taking Math 8. The overall achievement of the students significantly increased after de-tracking. The cohort of students in eighth-grade mathematics in 2015 were 15 months ahead of the previous cohort of students who were mainly in advanced classes.
Huh? What's "Math 8"? How was "overall achievement" measured?
How could decreasing the proportion of students in "advanced classes" from 63% to 12% result in a "cohort of students" that is "15 months ahead" of the students who were in "advanced classes"? (What definitions of "advanced" could possibly mean 15 months behind "non-advanced" coursework?)
If there's a strong case, and the writer understands it, it would be explained better than this – and probably include tables & graphs, rather than just rambling assertions like the above paragraph.
Comparing the approach to high school sports and academics really reveals how intellectual ability is not treated as a talent to be developed, at least in the US. In high school, there are junior varsity, varsity, and sometimes amateur level sport teams officially organized and recognized by school. They have formal tryouts, limited in the number of people accepted, resources dedicated to develop the talents, and school-wide recognition by other students. Rather than a gifted and talented program for students, perhaps there should be "varsity" level teams (i.e. classes) for subjects such as math, science, and literature, etc. There would be tryouts. And once a student is accepted into the program, official support for coaching, practice, development, competition, and official recognition with a varsity jacket, similar to that of sports.
How do we help those kids that are in 'gen pop', though? Simply pulling the smarter kids out, helping them, and ignoring the rest doesn't seem like a good answer, either.
I feel like HN is not the best place for this sort of discussion, since everyone is coming at the problem from the perspective of the high achiever. The low achievers deserve help, too.
I feel like HN is not the best place for this sort of discussion, since everyone is coming at the problem from the perspective of the high achiever. The low achievers deserve help, too.
The bottom 10-20% (larger in 'inner city' schools) of people with behavioral issues will always ruin it for everyone else.
Behavioral issues negatively correlates with intelligence and effort in school (by both the parents and the students). Increased tracking (i.e. separate low achieving and regular achieving) can be used to 'rescue' the majority of students that are average from having their education disrupted from the behavioral issue kids. Effort and behavioral (i.e. evaluate based on behavioral infractions) based hoops for parents and students can be used to separate the low achieving from the disruptive.
Behavioral issues negatively correlates with intelligence and effort in school (by both the parents and the students). Increased tracking (i.e. separate low achieving and regular achieving) can be used to 'rescue' the majority of students that are average from having their education disrupted from the behavioral issue kids. Effort and behavioral (i.e. evaluate based on behavioral infractions) based hoops for parents and students can be used to separate the low achieving from the disruptive.
Be careful how you define 'behavioral issues.' I think I know what you mean, but you should more carefully define it; I had plenty of behavioral issues. In fact, I was constantly in trouble for talking too much, not paying attention, being loud, etc. I was bored af.
But I wasn't doing drugs or fighting (minus the one or two times), so there's that.
But I wasn't doing drugs or fighting (minus the one or two times), so there's that.
Also need to be careful not to lump the bully and the victim into the same category of "fighting". Both need different interventions.
On the other hand, there will be some fights that defy such classification of the participants. In those circumstances, improperly classifying one participant as the victim and the other as the bully can make the situation worse than it was before.
I don't think anyone is advocating for 'ignoring the rest'. The point is to prevent 'the rest' from setting the pace of development for everyone. You can't optimize educational outcomes for the full spectrum of human beings, from the no-effort types with an IQ of 85, to motivated types with IQs of 115+, in a single classroom with a single curriculum. It just does not make sense.
If anything, separating high, medium, and low achievers and allowing them to move at their own pace seems like a preferable situation for everyone.
If anything, separating high, medium, and low achievers and allowing them to move at their own pace seems like a preferable situation for everyone.
Your assumption here is in exact opposition to the article. Unless you can successfully argue that the numbers in the article are wrong, it appears that what seems like a preferable situation is, in fact, not.
The article seems to dance around some carefully crafted statistics. Students are “happier,” or more kids are taking classes which are labeled as advanced. I see very little in the form of college admissions rates, SAT scores, etc.
It’s also possible that tracking does in fact lower the average performance while increasing the high end performance.
One things which would help regardless is for Administrators which permit students to perpetuate bullying and abuse within the student body to be sued out of a job if not charged criminally. The shit we put up with kids doing to kids luckily seems to be changing fairly radically, and that does obviously help you tune down some of the tracking which in the past served as much a behavior as it did a pedagogical purpose.
I will say that my 5th grade daughter basically has stopped being taught new material for the last year (2nd half of 4th and first half of 5th) while the whole the class seems to be stuck in perpetual review mode. She complains that the teacher will rarely offer something new, and she doesn’t understand why everyone else in the class can’t just listen the first time it’s explained, and why the teacher spends the rest of the week basically repeating themselves.
I’m paranoid of teaching her independently and just making her even more bored. Tracking doesn’t start in my district until 6th grade and we are both very much looking forward to it.
It’s also possible that tracking does in fact lower the average performance while increasing the high end performance.
One things which would help regardless is for Administrators which permit students to perpetuate bullying and abuse within the student body to be sued out of a job if not charged criminally. The shit we put up with kids doing to kids luckily seems to be changing fairly radically, and that does obviously help you tune down some of the tracking which in the past served as much a behavior as it did a pedagogical purpose.
I will say that my 5th grade daughter basically has stopped being taught new material for the last year (2nd half of 4th and first half of 5th) while the whole the class seems to be stuck in perpetual review mode. She complains that the teacher will rarely offer something new, and she doesn’t understand why everyone else in the class can’t just listen the first time it’s explained, and why the teacher spends the rest of the week basically repeating themselves.
I’m paranoid of teaching her independently and just making her even more bored. Tracking doesn’t start in my district until 6th grade and we are both very much looking forward to it.
> she doesn’t understand why everyone else in the class can’t just listen the first time it’s explained
Hey look, it's me!
Make sure she knows how to study. And doesn't see needing to study as a sure sign of failure, and the act of studying as something adjacent to cheating ("well yeah so-and-so got an A-, but only by studying"). It seems dumb as shit with the distance of [mumble] years but when I finally got around to introspecting re: what exactly went wrong with me starting in 7th or 8th grade—yep, turns out I held those attitudes, even if I might not have phrased it that way at the time.
Mind, I have no idea how to do this effectively. Likely we'll be facing the same problem with our eldest at some point, but we're not there yet so I don't have any battle-tested how-to advice.
Hey look, it's me!
Make sure she knows how to study. And doesn't see needing to study as a sure sign of failure, and the act of studying as something adjacent to cheating ("well yeah so-and-so got an A-, but only by studying"). It seems dumb as shit with the distance of [mumble] years but when I finally got around to introspecting re: what exactly went wrong with me starting in 7th or 8th grade—yep, turns out I held those attitudes, even if I might not have phrased it that way at the time.
Mind, I have no idea how to do this effectively. Likely we'll be facing the same problem with our eldest at some point, but we're not there yet so I don't have any battle-tested how-to advice.
You can help the top 90% by keeping the bottom 10% away from them. And similarly, you can probably help that bottom 10% by removing the bottom 1% (the bottom 10% of the bottom 10%) from their environment.
You can probably get good milage out of recursing this up until the point you're dealing with fractional people.
You can probably get good milage out of recursing this up until the point you're dealing with fractional people.
Why do they need more help? The classes are already designed for them. The problem is that the smart kids are forced to be in them too.
He said he did bad because he was bullied. Smart people aren't the only ones that get bullied. If the problem is bullying you aren't fixing it by pulling someone out, the bullies will just target other people.
The bullies aren't living healthy, productive lives either. More than likely, their home life is awful if not horrific.
I agree with this 100%, but the issues are not intertwined. We need to fix how classes are taught in "low achieving schools," but that's really hard to do when teachers are paid so poorly. Teaching isn't a lucrative career, and thus those that would be great teachers don't generally go into it. It's a really complex and difficult problem that I don't know I have a solution for. I do know that getting rid of magnet schools isn't it, though.
And I agree with this 100%. I think that if we could somehow by fiat pay teachers as much as we paid doctors or lawyers we would attract the same calibre of talent. But we pay teachers as much as janitors or secretaries and somehow expect them to inspire intellectuals.
One thing I'm not saying is that we should just give raises to everyone who's currently in the profession. It would have to be for jobs from here on out. I know of one school that does this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Equity_Project
One thing I'm not saying is that we should just give raises to everyone who's currently in the profession. It would have to be for jobs from here on out. I know of one school that does this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Equity_Project
> on average, public-school teachers receive total compensation that is roughly 50 percent higher than what they would receive in private-sector employment. While salaries are at appropriate levels, fringe benefits push teacher compensation far ahead of what private-sector workers enjoy. Consequently, recruiting more effective teachers for public schools will be much more difficult than simply raising salaries.
https://www.heritage.org/education/report/critical-issues-as...
https://www.heritage.org/education/report/critical-issues-as...
As someone raised by two teachers I can say that my parents both had to work two to four different jobs at times just to struggle to keep up. Whatever that statistic is claiming, it doesn't reflect reality in at least some cases.
Interesting... both my parents were teachers, and we lived comfortably enough (not rich, but never felt deprived)
Same here, but I recall my parents doing side hustles working nights at the drive-in, on summer breaks filling gardens for cash, cutting firewood, doing renovation projects on rental properties we would buy to fix and rent, running a snow plow truck 12-16 hours during storms (teachers get snow days in MD, so snow plow is a near-perfect side hustle), etc.
If you could share something about where and when your parents were working that would be most informative, thanks. Certainly there are outliers in every population but the study is talking about the teaching population, on average.
Utah, in a not-particularly-rich-but-not-middle-of-nowhere rural/suburban district, starting in the 1980s
The Heritage Foundation is an extremely right-wing biased think tank that also produces http://dailysignal.com. As a teacher, you should know that.
So? The arguments, statistical analysis and summary data they base the report on are all either in the report I linked or derived from publicly available data. You don’t need to trust anything they said. You can check each individual claim.
There’s no appeal to authority here. If you don’t believe their analysis feel free to attack it on the merits. But if the devil says 2 + 2 = 4 it’s still true. Either the analysis is correct or it isn’t. If it isn’t attack the analysis. You don’t need to trust the Heritage Foundation. If you can demolish their argument please do.
There’s no appeal to authority here. If you don’t believe their analysis feel free to attack it on the merits. But if the devil says 2 + 2 = 4 it’s still true. Either the analysis is correct or it isn’t. If it isn’t attack the analysis. You don’t need to trust the Heritage Foundation. If you can demolish their argument please do.
The Heritage Foundation has been caught lying in their self-funded "studies" so many times that I find it difficult to give them the benefit of doubt.
I’m not saying to give them the benefit of the doubt. I’m encouraging you not to, saying if you find something they’re wrong about or lying about shout it from the rooftops.
Note this study was national news in the US when released and quite thoroughly discussed so if there are flaws you could either find them yourself or google for them.
Note this study was national news in the US when released and quite thoroughly discussed so if there are flaws you could either find them yourself or google for them.
Well, that's five minutes of my life that I'm not getting back.
https://nepc.colorado.edu/sites/default/files/TTR-TchrCompen...
Consider me not surprised that there were serious methodological problems, including a general ignorance of the literature.
https://nepc.colorado.edu/sites/default/files/TTR-TchrCompen...
Consider me not surprised that there were serious methodological problems, including a general ignorance of the literature.
[deleted]
TylerE(1)
Honestly... I don’t care much. My school was low on bullying. Nothing torturous like others experience. Most of the gen pop students were pretty rude and dumb. And most of them have lower middle class business jobs that suck ass but put food on the table. And none of their education mattered except for rubber stamping milestones. “Deserves help” doesn’t make sense to me. Their life choices are going to be the determinants of whether they hit a moderate outcome vs an incredibly shitty outcome. Their education isn’t useful.
If you want to help them, find a way to improve society that’s overburdened with unskilled workers with middle class aspirations. The gen pop group doesn’t disappear when high school ends. It’s still just the majority of people, just perhaps less socially empowered than in high school. We didn’t fail to make them love science, they just don't care about science. It would be far better to recognize that they would be just fine with less education, no college debt, and some encouragement to make a better society for everyone.
If you want to help them, find a way to improve society that’s overburdened with unskilled workers with middle class aspirations. The gen pop group doesn’t disappear when high school ends. It’s still just the majority of people, just perhaps less socially empowered than in high school. We didn’t fail to make them love science, they just don't care about science. It would be far better to recognize that they would be just fine with less education, no college debt, and some encouragement to make a better society for everyone.
> The other reason that students do well in mixed groups is that teachers know they need to “differentiate” work, providing opportunities for students to take work to different levels.
This isn't a reason students do well in non-differentiated groups, but a confounding factor to the basic question of whether or not they do (one directly underlined in the case of the unspecified other bay area district studied where detracking and teacher professional development were simultaneous interventions.)
It's well-known that students do better when material is tailored to their individual ability, so if you are comparing students grouped in broad ability groups without this individualization and those detracked from broad groups but provided individualization, you lose the ability to distinguish between effects of broad group tracking and the qualitatively well-known effect of individualization.
This isn't a reason students do well in non-differentiated groups, but a confounding factor to the basic question of whether or not they do (one directly underlined in the case of the unspecified other bay area district studied where detracking and teacher professional development were simultaneous interventions.)
It's well-known that students do better when material is tailored to their individual ability, so if you are comparing students grouped in broad ability groups without this individualization and those detracked from broad groups but provided individualization, you lose the ability to distinguish between effects of broad group tracking and the qualitatively well-known effect of individualization.
When I was in elementary school we had this program called GATE and basically it was like once a month you go to a different school with other GATE students from the other schools in the district. There would be special classes like oceanography, robotics, etc. I don't think it added any value into my life ever except variety of experience. I also think it made other students who weren't in it feel kind of bad because they didn't get to go do anything. They should have just done it for everyone IMO.
I agree this likely would have been better for the rest of the students if they too had individualized targeted classes to experience.
That'd be a great time for those with strong prospects in sports to receive individualized education with outside coaches/players from those fields.
It'd also be a great time for students at risk academically to secretly have tutoring and targeted coverage of core subjects they might be struggling with.
However I'm much more hopeful for actually personalized education; like turning school in to more of an MMO-RPG class system where assignments are like the quests in a game and participation on larger projects has real world commons / civic infrastructure improvements. Real mentor-ship and problems in the real world would give practical application to education that I feel would make retention much stronger.
That'd be a great time for those with strong prospects in sports to receive individualized education with outside coaches/players from those fields.
It'd also be a great time for students at risk academically to secretly have tutoring and targeted coverage of core subjects they might be struggling with.
However I'm much more hopeful for actually personalized education; like turning school in to more of an MMO-RPG class system where assignments are like the quests in a game and participation on larger projects has real world commons / civic infrastructure improvements. Real mentor-ship and problems in the real world would give practical application to education that I feel would make retention much stronger.
Lots of people sharing stories about how fortunate they were to be saved from bullying and chaos.
I can relate, since I switched schools myself to get away from bullying (though to a Waldorf school rather than any kind of gifted program). But have you stopped to think, if this study is correct, then some of the following seems like they must be true:
* you would actually have done as well if you stayed
* you would have done worse if you stayed, but others who went into gifted programs would have done better if they didn't, making up for it
* people like you are just too rare to make a difference in the statistics.
My older brother wasn't actively bullied, but was in an infamously dysfunctional class. He just filtered them out somehow, never changed school, and did far better than me academically in the end. So maybe an anecdotal data point for the first option.
There are other things besides achievement. I can certainly see an argument for separating kids who actively hurt other kids, whether it matters for achievement or not. But it seems giving high scoring kids extra stimulating environments isn't all it's cracked up to be (If the study can be believed).
I can relate, since I switched schools myself to get away from bullying (though to a Waldorf school rather than any kind of gifted program). But have you stopped to think, if this study is correct, then some of the following seems like they must be true:
* you would actually have done as well if you stayed
* you would have done worse if you stayed, but others who went into gifted programs would have done better if they didn't, making up for it
* people like you are just too rare to make a difference in the statistics.
My older brother wasn't actively bullied, but was in an infamously dysfunctional class. He just filtered them out somehow, never changed school, and did far better than me academically in the end. So maybe an anecdotal data point for the first option.
There are other things besides achievement. I can certainly see an argument for separating kids who actively hurt other kids, whether it matters for achievement or not. But it seems giving high scoring kids extra stimulating environments isn't all it's cracked up to be (If the study can be believed).
I was in gifted classes for a couple of years from like 5th-6th grade but was eventually separated. I had perfect standardized test scores, but my grades were average due to many reasons. Some of my teachers didn't like me, and I guess they decided to kick me out. Later I ended up dropping out in high school but still went to college later and now work at one of the big tech companies. So in the end I ended up alright but others may not be as lucky.
I'm not going to lie, being separated from the "smart" kids felt bad. I knew I was just as capable, but someone had the power to decide who is gifted and I guess they didn't like me. I was placed in classes where the teachers were of lower quality and the material was even less interesting. One of the teachers who didn't like me while I was with the gifted kids was my science teacher and that made me dislike science as a whole. I had a couple of math teachers who were extremely supportive throughout my early education and that made a world of difference. I decided to study CS in large part because I could avoid a lot of science courses and focus on math.
I also have a sister who was indirectly affected by me being in gifted programs. She later admitted to me it made her feel really bad that I was placed in those programs while she wasn't. I think this really hurt her self esteem and had a negative impact in her education. I could imagine other kids feeling similarly when some of their peers get labeled as gifted while they don't.
Looking back, the biggest benefit of being in gifted programs was simply that the teachers were better. So the kids who didn't necessarily need better teachers got the best ones, while the rest got packets to read through. The kids also weren't that different. The main difference was how much the parents of the gifted kids were involved in their education and they were generally wealthier. Overall it seemed like an unfair system that told kids who were just starting out whether they were smart or not. I think we really need better and more teachers, but they aren't paid enough. School is more of a place to put children while parents work than it is a place to educate.
I'm not going to lie, being separated from the "smart" kids felt bad. I knew I was just as capable, but someone had the power to decide who is gifted and I guess they didn't like me. I was placed in classes where the teachers were of lower quality and the material was even less interesting. One of the teachers who didn't like me while I was with the gifted kids was my science teacher and that made me dislike science as a whole. I had a couple of math teachers who were extremely supportive throughout my early education and that made a world of difference. I decided to study CS in large part because I could avoid a lot of science courses and focus on math.
I also have a sister who was indirectly affected by me being in gifted programs. She later admitted to me it made her feel really bad that I was placed in those programs while she wasn't. I think this really hurt her self esteem and had a negative impact in her education. I could imagine other kids feeling similarly when some of their peers get labeled as gifted while they don't.
Looking back, the biggest benefit of being in gifted programs was simply that the teachers were better. So the kids who didn't necessarily need better teachers got the best ones, while the rest got packets to read through. The kids also weren't that different. The main difference was how much the parents of the gifted kids were involved in their education and they were generally wealthier. Overall it seemed like an unfair system that told kids who were just starting out whether they were smart or not. I think we really need better and more teachers, but they aren't paid enough. School is more of a place to put children while parents work than it is a place to educate.
The article seems to suggest that issues are less the separation than the messaging and expectations created with it. Personally, I think the goal should be to always encourage and challenge all students, and show all students that working diligently and thoughtfully can pay off.
I know from experience that being in a classroom that functions at the level of the lowest common denominator is basically abusive to everyone else. What would you feel like if you had to spend high school English class reading Dick and Jane out loud, for example? That's what a poor combined class is like for "G&T" students (and I had a couple real rough years when things felt like that). But that's also a far from saying "GATE kids" should always be "tracked" or feel like they're stuck in a particular lane and loaded down with ridiculous expectations.
I know from experience that being in a classroom that functions at the level of the lowest common denominator is basically abusive to everyone else. What would you feel like if you had to spend high school English class reading Dick and Jane out loud, for example? That's what a poor combined class is like for "G&T" students (and I had a couple real rough years when things felt like that). But that's also a far from saying "GATE kids" should always be "tracked" or feel like they're stuck in a particular lane and loaded down with ridiculous expectations.
There a lot more options than tracked vs non-tracked.
My public school district implemented a combination of pull-out programs, advanced sections, and tracking on a per-subject and sometimes per-previous year's performance basis. A lot of effort was made to keep class cohorts together, while allowing students who excel at a specific subject to engage in a more challenging curriculum for that particular subject. These were all based on independent assessments. There wasn't a notion of "track" because most students were in a hodgepodge of "advanced/ahead" and "regular" courses, depending on the subject, depending on the previous year's performance, or depending on whether they themselves decided to sign up for the class or not.
A high school kid could:
- be a year ahead in English (which would only separate them from classmates for freshman and sophomore year; English curriculum was completely open, like college, after sophomore-level English.)
- be in one of three math cohorts
- be in the honors or regular section of a science course (based on the previous year's science performance). It was always the same science subject (eg, honors bio vs bio).
- take any AP course they met the prereqs for (iirc, pretty much all APs were available to all students within four years, save AP Calc, which would require a summer school catch up for those in the baseline math track).
- have been in the gifted pull-out program in elementary school (no special curriculum for "gifted" students in high school, afaik)
My public school district implemented a combination of pull-out programs, advanced sections, and tracking on a per-subject and sometimes per-previous year's performance basis. A lot of effort was made to keep class cohorts together, while allowing students who excel at a specific subject to engage in a more challenging curriculum for that particular subject. These were all based on independent assessments. There wasn't a notion of "track" because most students were in a hodgepodge of "advanced/ahead" and "regular" courses, depending on the subject, depending on the previous year's performance, or depending on whether they themselves decided to sign up for the class or not.
A high school kid could:
- be a year ahead in English (which would only separate them from classmates for freshman and sophomore year; English curriculum was completely open, like college, after sophomore-level English.)
- be in one of three math cohorts
- be in the honors or regular section of a science course (based on the previous year's science performance). It was always the same science subject (eg, honors bio vs bio).
- take any AP course they met the prereqs for (iirc, pretty much all APs were available to all students within four years, save AP Calc, which would require a summer school catch up for those in the baseline math track).
- have been in the gifted pull-out program in elementary school (no special curriculum for "gifted" students in high school, afaik)
When I was in High School, we didn't have "advanced math" per se. You just went in to the next math. If you were advanced, you did Geometry as a freshman, and if you were remedial you did Geometry as a senior, but we were all mixed into the same class.
I ended up making friends with a senior (as a freshman) because I'd help her with the problem sets after I quickly finished them. This not only helped her, but it helped me master the material better because I had to know it well enough to teach it. The teacher encouraged this by allowing all of us time to work together in class, so this happened with a bunch of small groups.
I ended up making friends with a senior (as a freshman) because I'd help her with the problem sets after I quickly finished them. This not only helped her, but it helped me master the material better because I had to know it well enough to teach it. The teacher encouraged this by allowing all of us time to work together in class, so this happened with a bunch of small groups.
The problem with this article is that the author keeps talking about aggregate "achievement". Is it better to slightly improve the aggregate number of children who can limp across the arbitrary "achievement" thresholds supposedly measured by ever-changing tests, or make sure that the resources exist for every child to exist in an environment that allows them to learn at their own speed? Classrooms forced to teach at a pace that accommodates the slowest learners necessarily hold back the education and growth of every student capable and eager to learn at a higher rate (as well as inducing boredom and apathy). I'd argue that we should be increasing resources to the slowest students who have the hardest problem closing the achievement gap rather than trying to eliminate that gap by pretending that all students learn at the same rate and holding back our best and brightest.
I find it interesting that a lot of people here are referencing how they wish they could have been separated very early on. That the "smart" children were nicer and the rest were just bullies. I'll hedge that some of that is true. Sure - at my schools - some of the worst performers and bullies were in lower tracks. The worst moved or never went to the normal high school though. They ended up failing so hard and/or getting too many out of school suspensions. However - gotta say - plenty of assholes at the top marks. I can't remember any high(er) performers being very nice. Most were jerks outright. Bullying then was usually more psychological than physical but it wasn't foregone to see physical issues.
I was quickly shot in and out midyear due to my rather unpredictable performance (go figure - regular bullying, alcoholic parents, harsh punitive measures, and high neglect never fared me well). I never noticed the bullying change beyond the superficial. (Physical vs psychological - but, even then, that wasn't off limits really much either)
If the goal is to increase test scores - maybe fix the core issues that get in the way of students learning the material. But - I get it, that's basically impossible. Shit parents are ubiquitous. They seem almost universal.
I was quickly shot in and out midyear due to my rather unpredictable performance (go figure - regular bullying, alcoholic parents, harsh punitive measures, and high neglect never fared me well). I never noticed the bullying change beyond the superficial. (Physical vs psychological - but, even then, that wasn't off limits really much either)
If the goal is to increase test scores - maybe fix the core issues that get in the way of students learning the material. But - I get it, that's basically impossible. Shit parents are ubiquitous. They seem almost universal.
> after San Francisco Unified de-tracked math, the proportion of students failing algebra fell from 40 percent to 8 percent and the proportion of students taking advanced classes rose to a third, the highest percentage in district history. Until 10th grade, students take the same mathematics classes. From 11th grade on, students can choose different pathways.
That doesn't seem like much time to choose different math pathways. For example, the "math kids" I grew up with took several classes post-calculus in high school. How can you do that if you're only taking calculus as a junior or possibly senior (depending on what the common coursework was up through sophomore year)?
That doesn't seem like much time to choose different math pathways. For example, the "math kids" I grew up with took several classes post-calculus in high school. How can you do that if you're only taking calculus as a junior or possibly senior (depending on what the common coursework was up through sophomore year)?
My experience specifically with SFUSD math tracking, a good 15 years back, was that it was rigid and caused as many problems as it solved.
Specifically, I had a parent that really, really wanted me to do honors math because my older brother did well at it(and he went on to get a math PhD etc.) and math seemed like a ticket to "success" - and so, in both middle school and high school, I was tracked into the middle options, and then within a few days of starting, parent had pushed around the bureaucracy to get me in honors, where I was not completely hopeless all the time, but suffered quite a lot from pressure to succeed and cheated a few times. Finally in my sophomore HS year I managed to fail a class and got switched to the lower track because for some reason you couldn't go from honors down to the middle option...and then some time later, parent tried to make me talk the school into letting me take the AP Calculus course anyway! Which they said "no" to, of course.
Basically, HS math ended with calculus, but even that "lower" track had a strong pre-calc foundation with some trig, linear algebra, etc. At most there was always about a year of difference at stake, in fact - so the post-tracking setup did not change that much. But when I went off to college all these feelings carried over and could not be left behind: I tried taking the engineering Calc courses, hit a wall with integrals, wasted probably a year trying to prove something to myself and developed a miserable self-outlook, settling on an economics degree because it had easier calc courses. (Had I realized that there was also some executive dysfunction in play it might have all been a lot smoother - oh well.)
Basically, parental worry about math tracking created a huge, huge sideline from taking on activities that would have actually helped along my development. It started early and to some extent wouldn't have been stopped by the system, but it would have presented less of a direct obstacle in daily life.
In contrast, the option of self-study and college courses as a supplement has been the path for the truly gifted learners, especially around SF(CCSF, SFSU, USF, and you can go visit Berkeley if that's not enough). That's a way more straightforward way to go about it w/r to a lot of academic topics.
Specifically, I had a parent that really, really wanted me to do honors math because my older brother did well at it(and he went on to get a math PhD etc.) and math seemed like a ticket to "success" - and so, in both middle school and high school, I was tracked into the middle options, and then within a few days of starting, parent had pushed around the bureaucracy to get me in honors, where I was not completely hopeless all the time, but suffered quite a lot from pressure to succeed and cheated a few times. Finally in my sophomore HS year I managed to fail a class and got switched to the lower track because for some reason you couldn't go from honors down to the middle option...and then some time later, parent tried to make me talk the school into letting me take the AP Calculus course anyway! Which they said "no" to, of course.
Basically, HS math ended with calculus, but even that "lower" track had a strong pre-calc foundation with some trig, linear algebra, etc. At most there was always about a year of difference at stake, in fact - so the post-tracking setup did not change that much. But when I went off to college all these feelings carried over and could not be left behind: I tried taking the engineering Calc courses, hit a wall with integrals, wasted probably a year trying to prove something to myself and developed a miserable self-outlook, settling on an economics degree because it had easier calc courses. (Had I realized that there was also some executive dysfunction in play it might have all been a lot smoother - oh well.)
Basically, parental worry about math tracking created a huge, huge sideline from taking on activities that would have actually helped along my development. It started early and to some extent wouldn't have been stopped by the system, but it would have presented less of a direct obstacle in daily life.
In contrast, the option of self-study and college courses as a supplement has been the path for the truly gifted learners, especially around SF(CCSF, SFSU, USF, and you can go visit Berkeley if that's not enough). That's a way more straightforward way to go about it w/r to a lot of academic topics.
My high school education (Canada) worked like that. Calculus was taught in grade 12, so there wasn't any time to specialize more than that in the curriculum. My experience (granted, not in math, but in an abnormally math-intensive engineering program) was that colleges assumed you knew nothing more than basic Calculus, and built everything up from there. Even if you had gone to an advanced program (AP, TEALS, etc...) it really only bought you a semester head start at most.
> . For example, the "math kids" I grew up with took several classes post-calculus in high school. How can you do that if you're only taking calculus as a junior or possibly senior
What if taking more than Calculus 2 in High school isn’t necessary?
Your school seems incredibly privileged to me, imho.
What if taking more than Calculus 2 in High school isn’t necessary?
Your school seems incredibly privileged to me, imho.
Surely it isn't "necessary" to take more than Calc II. But that doesn't mean that it wouldn't be good for some students to go further than that. The point is that in the setup described, no kids can take very advanced classes.
As far as privilege is concerned, it was a public IB school in Sacramento, and we had kids from all types of backgrounds. The average income (even in the IB program) was definitely lower than in other area high schools.
As far as privilege is concerned, it was a public IB school in Sacramento, and we had kids from all types of backgrounds. The average income (even in the IB program) was definitely lower than in other area high schools.
In the final two years of secondary education — UK Sixth Form (college), roughly equivalent to US Junior and Senior years — I was in a selected math(s) class of just 12 students. Certainly the group of kids in the class all excelled academically at that point, and of that dozen many have gone on to be very successful (by a variety of metrics)
One point from TFA jumped out at me
— others shared that they’d learned they shouldn’t ask questions, as “gifted people are meant to know everything.”
I remember being astonished at this attitude at the time, that when the hardest problem sets were being worked through, consistently there was this sense that students were afraid to ask questions or make suggestions for fear of being wrong. The class kept moving because of a combination of no-nonsense teachers and a couple of students with a habit of blurting out the first thing that came to their head. Those students weren't often correct (I was occasionally one of them) but they definitely kept the class from stalling
One point from TFA jumped out at me
— others shared that they’d learned they shouldn’t ask questions, as “gifted people are meant to know everything.”
I remember being astonished at this attitude at the time, that when the hardest problem sets were being worked through, consistently there was this sense that students were afraid to ask questions or make suggestions for fear of being wrong. The class kept moving because of a combination of no-nonsense teachers and a couple of students with a habit of blurting out the first thing that came to their head. Those students weren't often correct (I was occasionally one of them) but they definitely kept the class from stalling
This article mostly talks about the bay area (and slightly mentions national studies), so it seems that they were mostly studying the case were most students were already meeting a sort of baseline.
From my personal experience, I think that separating kids in lower income areas leads to positive experiences. Before being in the gifted program, my classes were often interrupted by fights and stuff that was more fit on world star.
From my personal experience, I think that separating kids in lower income areas leads to positive experiences. Before being in the gifted program, my classes were often interrupted by fights and stuff that was more fit on world star.
I want separation, but I'm not convinced separating the "cream of the crop" is the right way to go.
What if schools were more proactive to weed out and separate the bullies from everyone else. I think we'd end up with an overall healthier society, wherein 90% of kids will get a good education and have a good experience in school vs trying only to ensure the top ~10% get separated from the rest.
What if schools were more proactive to weed out and separate the bullies from everyone else. I think we'd end up with an overall healthier society, wherein 90% of kids will get a good education and have a good experience in school vs trying only to ensure the top ~10% get separated from the rest.
The author is a professor at Stanford. If separating gifted children has no benefits, why doesn't Stanford admit students at random?
Because IQ is only loosely correlated with actual achievement? College admissions generally care about achievement (grades, awards, activities, extra-curriculars, etc.), diversity, and likelihood to be a successful student who later donates money back to the school. IQ is not a great predictor of these outcomes since there are a lot of high-IQ individuals who don't really apply themselves.
But it answers a wrong question.
Stanford does not admit kids by IQ score. But it does have an entrance exam, as opposed to a lottery among those who applied.
That is, they likely see some value in separating by some measure of aptitude.
Stanford does not admit kids by IQ score. But it does have an entrance exam, as opposed to a lottery among those who applied.
That is, they likely see some value in separating by some measure of aptitude.
The entrance exam is a fig leaf. If they admitted based on IQ scores directly then they would be open to direct and severe attack by IQ skeptics and anti-racists.
By using an entrance exam, they get to claim they’re admitting based on academic achievement but in reality they know that the test is highly correlated with IQ. All written exams are, for the most part.
By using an entrance exam, they get to claim they’re admitting based on academic achievement but in reality they know that the test is highly correlated with IQ. All written exams are, for the most part.
Stanford wants to admit the students who will have the most achievement. Thats very different than measuring the differential achievement of (supposedly comparable) students who were admitted to Stanford and some other school.
This is true. But I’d rather folks be open about the social engineering instead of pretending it doesn’t happen.
Wouldn't say about gifted children and achievement but even then, I'd like to be separated just for the sake of having someone I could share one idea or two. Spent most of my childhood lonesome and not because 'antisocial' like I was led to believe but because the people I'd like to be hanging out with was spread out, just like was, spending their days lone (or worse), just like I did.
I snapped out of this unlucky situation after I got into the university. This could be achieved back then by doing just what happened now: putting me and the other people like, together.
I would wonder what the standards used are. There was a recent article about how students are less prepared for University since Common Core was implemented. Maybe the advanced class is easier that it ever was.
The biggest problem with education for gifted or even average students is that our standards are too low. It would be like if we set a 10 minute max for the mile run. Anybody that could run faster would still get a 10Min score. Then we rate the school based on the average running time of the entire student body.
There is no incentive to push kids faster than 10 min. All the resources go into the 2 kids on crutches.
The biggest problem with education for gifted or even average students is that our standards are too low. It would be like if we set a 10 minute max for the mile run. Anybody that could run faster would still get a 10Min score. Then we rate the school based on the average running time of the entire student body.
There is no incentive to push kids faster than 10 min. All the resources go into the 2 kids on crutches.
> OPINION: Separating ‘gifted’ children hasn’t led to better achievement
This is an opinion piece, it is not evidence based. Why was "OPINION", which is part of the original title, removed?
This is an opinion piece, it is not evidence based. Why was "OPINION", which is part of the original title, removed?
My school system was a mess when it came to their gifted and talented (GAT) program. In my case, I was identified as a candidate, subjected to an absolutely insane battery of cognitive, aptitude and other tests, and then pulled from class once a week to go to another school with other GAT kids. Once there I was put into a room and basically told to go do smart things with no other primer, driver, or material to work with. My own personal interests were ignored. I was told I was disappointing my sponsor teacher by my lack of output, with no particular set of expectations on what, exactly, I was supposed to be doing.
After a year of this I asked to be excused from the program and spent the next year in not a "normal" class, but a remedial class because the school had sacrificed their non-GAT classes to create academic space for the GAT kids. So basically you were either doing some kind of advanced literature analysis or you were being tested on how to spell such challenging words as "ball" and "dog". There were other elements of the GAT program that were similarly discouraging.
I couldn't get out of school fast enough and it was such a damaging experience that I didn't go back to university until years later.
After a year of this I asked to be excused from the program and spent the next year in not a "normal" class, but a remedial class because the school had sacrificed their non-GAT classes to create academic space for the GAT kids. So basically you were either doing some kind of advanced literature analysis or you were being tested on how to spell such challenging words as "ball" and "dog". There were other elements of the GAT program that were similarly discouraging.
I couldn't get out of school fast enough and it was such a damaging experience that I didn't go back to university until years later.
[deleted]
Interesting - I went to a tracked high school. The advanced track kids were expected to take a bunch of AP exams at the ends of their tracks. I was in advanced but didn't always like it - there were really some gunners in these courses blowing Calc BC out of the water. That said, there is NO WAY every kid in high school is BC calc ready - so clearly at some point people are getting to choose what classes to take?
The problems that smart kids encounter are the same issues that appear generation after generation. Smart kids usually don't follow the crowd so they stand out and are easy picking for bullies. We want and are expecting bullies to disappear since we are better tuned into the problem of bullying. So things will change for the better we say but that's just, not reality.
There's special education for kids with special needs; why is there no special education for smart kids that will help them deal with social situations? Smart kids have to deal with social land mines that will scar them if not handled correctly. No matter how smart someone is there is no way to know what to do in all social situations especially since most of these kids will not have a role model to follow. Even if they are kids of parents that had to deal with the same issues it does not mean that the parents will be able to help.
There's special education for kids with special needs; why is there no special education for smart kids that will help them deal with social situations? Smart kids have to deal with social land mines that will scar them if not handled correctly. No matter how smart someone is there is no way to know what to do in all social situations especially since most of these kids will not have a role model to follow. Even if they are kids of parents that had to deal with the same issues it does not mean that the parents will be able to help.
From the article, it sounds like the measure of 'better achievement' is baseline scores across all students.
I was always of the opinion that separating based on ability level was not about improving the baseline, but about allowing those able to learn greater depth to do so.
Not every student is going to earn a Fields Medal or develop new medical procedures, and frankly, that's ok.
But we do need some who will push the boundaries.
The only issue I have is that the selection process itself has not been entirely merit-based, frequently showing preference for students from certain backgrounds at the expense of gifted children of color or from less wealthy backgrounds (and at the expense of society as a whole, who has lost out on the benefits those children could have provided, given the opportunity).
I was always of the opinion that separating based on ability level was not about improving the baseline, but about allowing those able to learn greater depth to do so.
Not every student is going to earn a Fields Medal or develop new medical procedures, and frankly, that's ok.
But we do need some who will push the boundaries.
The only issue I have is that the selection process itself has not been entirely merit-based, frequently showing preference for students from certain backgrounds at the expense of gifted children of color or from less wealthy backgrounds (and at the expense of society as a whole, who has lost out on the benefits those children could have provided, given the opportunity).
So we shouldn't care about improving how the lower performing kids do, since they aren't going to win Fields Medals or develop new medical procedures?
This is a super tricky question to answer... how much extra achievement by the top of the class is worth how much extra achievement by the bottom of the class? There isn't a simple answer.
This is a super tricky question to answer... how much extra achievement by the top of the class is worth how much extra achievement by the bottom of the class? There isn't a simple answer.
It's not really important for someone with an IQ of 85 to attempt to study algebra
If students are inappropriate put into advanced classes, they will struggle, and of course that will bring down the achievement of the student body.
> Eight Bay Area school districts found similar results when they de-tracked middle-school mathematics and provided professional development to teachers. In 2014, 63 percent of students were in advanced classes, whereas in 2015 only 12 percent were in advanced classes and everyone else was taking Math 8.
How did they "de-track" anything? Just the numbers were reshuffled. Advanced classes continued, with reduced enrollment.
Could it be that though 63% were in advanced classes in 2014, only 12% (or fewer) actually belonged there? So the 2015 picture was a rational correction?
> Eight Bay Area school districts found similar results when they de-tracked middle-school mathematics and provided professional development to teachers. In 2014, 63 percent of students were in advanced classes, whereas in 2015 only 12 percent were in advanced classes and everyone else was taking Math 8.
How did they "de-track" anything? Just the numbers were reshuffled. Advanced classes continued, with reduced enrollment.
Could it be that though 63% were in advanced classes in 2014, only 12% (or fewer) actually belonged there? So the 2015 picture was a rational correction?
It's worth mentioning that gifted and talented schools also put all the top test takers into a small number of schools within a system taking away AP opportunities and other funding from other schools within the system.
Additionally, other kids in the system miss out from the interaction with top performing students whose habits and interests can rub off and help lift up other students. One of the most important parts of going to school is meeting people and learning new things from them and this isn't mentioned enough in the test score and percentile driven education age.
Additionally, other kids in the system miss out from the interaction with top performing students whose habits and interests can rub off and help lift up other students. One of the most important parts of going to school is meeting people and learning new things from them and this isn't mentioned enough in the test score and percentile driven education age.
the best students should never be weighed down to benefit the lower performers. the top percentile people in essentially any pursuit are responsible for a disproportionately large impact. it is far more important for the top performers to achieve their potential than for the middle to do slightly better.
At any school in the system the top performers would be in advanced classes and receiving the top education at that school. We are talking about public schools, everyone pays taxes for these schools not just the families of the top performers. Therefore, every student should have access to the AP classes and resources that are centralized within magnet schools.
Why? Why should a student who isn’t (or probably shouldn’t be) college-bound have theoretical (or actual) access to an AP course?
I was barred from taking our Vocational-Technical courses (auto repair, auto body, advanced shop, etc) because they weren’t offered to G&T kids. That also seems fine to me. Not every human is well suited for every endeavor.
I was barred from taking our Vocational-Technical courses (auto repair, auto body, advanced shop, etc) because they weren’t offered to G&T kids. That also seems fine to me. Not every human is well suited for every endeavor.
I come from Russia, where the idea of gifted classes is taken to the next level: instead of gifted classes we have entire gifted schools. If this is true, that children who coudln't make it into gifted class are so much demoralized by the presence of gifted children, how about we build gifted schools here in the U.S.? This way non-gifted students won't be exposed to gifted ones on a dayily basis. Transportation might be an issue though - in Russia it is absolutely normal when 8 or 9-year old children take public transportation to school on their own.
> And when we separate students into different classes, the message we send them is that their ability is fixed. When students, instead, embrace the knowledge that there are no limits to their learning, outcomes improve.
I find it difficult to believe in a sudden shift in the student worldview from a relatively minor change. I'd tend to assume any effect was a shiff in classroom norms.
We all tend to take behavioral hints from those around us. If you go from a class where most people aren't paying attention, to one where most people are, it can sway the behavior of the remainder.
I find it difficult to believe in a sudden shift in the student worldview from a relatively minor change. I'd tend to assume any effect was a shiff in classroom norms.
We all tend to take behavioral hints from those around us. If you go from a class where most people aren't paying attention, to one where most people are, it can sway the behavior of the remainder.
In elementary school, I was in the "Gifted" program. It meant 1 day per week I would go to the library with a teacher that taught special stuff like "logic problems" and doing research and making slideshows. It was a lot of stuff.
This is where I learned to program. This single skill was hugely impactful to me.
But the rest of the time was probably actually more helpful, as I was forced to do all the rest of my classwork for my regular classes and pass all my regular tests in addition to all the work for Gifted. This kept me much, much more engaged in education than I would have been otherwise.
Middle school had 1 class per day the same way, but it was a pale shadow of the Elementary version.
High school had "Honors" or "AP" (Advanced Placement, IIRC) classes that totally separated me from the kids that were just there to put in time. They had no interest in learning and were actively against it, but I was no longer associating with them for Literature, Science, and Math classes, and there were no class clowns to slow everything down. We also had dual-enrollment classes where college classes were taught at the high school for credit in both.
Missing out on these 3 systems would absolutely have stunted my growth and I doubt I'd be where I am today without them.
My wish isn't to separate kids, though. I wish they could all enjoy learning like I do. We haven't cracked that nut yet, though, and it seems like separation is still necessary in order to give everyone their potential.
This is where I learned to program. This single skill was hugely impactful to me.
But the rest of the time was probably actually more helpful, as I was forced to do all the rest of my classwork for my regular classes and pass all my regular tests in addition to all the work for Gifted. This kept me much, much more engaged in education than I would have been otherwise.
Middle school had 1 class per day the same way, but it was a pale shadow of the Elementary version.
High school had "Honors" or "AP" (Advanced Placement, IIRC) classes that totally separated me from the kids that were just there to put in time. They had no interest in learning and were actively against it, but I was no longer associating with them for Literature, Science, and Math classes, and there were no class clowns to slow everything down. We also had dual-enrollment classes where college classes were taught at the high school for credit in both.
Missing out on these 3 systems would absolutely have stunted my growth and I doubt I'd be where I am today without them.
My wish isn't to separate kids, though. I wish they could all enjoy learning like I do. We haven't cracked that nut yet, though, and it seems like separation is still necessary in order to give everyone their potential.
Gifted education (and other advanced classes) were important because it taught me it was okay to be smart and learn things.
A lot of other kids will try and keep you down. Make fun of you for using big words and knowing things and learning things.
At the same time I'm glad I didn't grow up in a bubble with only gifted kids. Coping with people different than you is an important skill.
A lot of other kids will try and keep you down. Make fun of you for using big words and knowing things and learning things.
At the same time I'm glad I didn't grow up in a bubble with only gifted kids. Coping with people different than you is an important skill.
[deleted]
I was in the gifted program. So is my daughter. It's a nice break from the monotony of regular school but it's not challenging in any way. It's not really clear to me what the purpose of the program is, but it doesn't appear to even try to challenge the students or introduce them to more interesting/meaningful curriculum.
>It's not really clear to me what the purpose of the program is, but it doesn't appear to even try to challenge the students or introduce them to more interesting/meaningful curriculum.
Its purpose is to maintain the deception that the education system is designed to educate, rather than the daycare-disguised-as-education function it actually serves.
Fortunately for educators and parents, even gifted kids are still easy targets for the "we can't do anything else, so give them a token raise, a fancy title, and stick them in a room [maybe with others like them] so everyone else can get back to work" thing that quite a few organizations currently do. It's one thing to accept this when you have some idea of how much you as a person are worth; it's quite another to accept this when you're a child and have no idea that this is merely a token gesture (even though you may have your suspicions, you'll generally lack the opportunity to do something about it even if you're capable of acknowledging it).
And every adult that interacts with these kids all know (on a subconscious level) but will refuse to remedy this knowledge gap when they see it for pragmatic reasons- teachers and administrators don't want their job to become harder and/or don't have time, and parents desire obedience and subordination from their kids and/or don't have time/money to allow limit-pushing.
You may be in a unique position to remedy this; if you are I highly recommend you take advantage of it.
Its purpose is to maintain the deception that the education system is designed to educate, rather than the daycare-disguised-as-education function it actually serves.
Fortunately for educators and parents, even gifted kids are still easy targets for the "we can't do anything else, so give them a token raise, a fancy title, and stick them in a room [maybe with others like them] so everyone else can get back to work" thing that quite a few organizations currently do. It's one thing to accept this when you have some idea of how much you as a person are worth; it's quite another to accept this when you're a child and have no idea that this is merely a token gesture (even though you may have your suspicions, you'll generally lack the opportunity to do something about it even if you're capable of acknowledging it).
And every adult that interacts with these kids all know (on a subconscious level) but will refuse to remedy this knowledge gap when they see it for pragmatic reasons- teachers and administrators don't want their job to become harder and/or don't have time, and parents desire obedience and subordination from their kids and/or don't have time/money to allow limit-pushing.
You may be in a unique position to remedy this; if you are I highly recommend you take advantage of it.
The problem with advanced placement / gt / etc is that just like the broader educational system it assumes everyone learns the same just a lot faster. In my own experience, and I get it, this is purely anecdotal: the three smartest people I know, and by smart I mean like off the charts genius level, all were recognized early as being beyond what even gt was going to do for them. They were all taken aside and basically told: you have Carte Blanche to do Whatever you want, go to the library and learn what interests you. Now, I ask you this: why should that gift only be afforded to kids who are so off the charts the teachers don’t know what else to do with them? Why not focus on getting kids the structure and discipline and desire to learn that they can go seek the same path if they want to do it?
I think in a few decades people will be looking back at the obsession over achievement and academics as something weird. People learn and achieve in different paces, and, assuming a lifetime of continuous opportunity for learning (as we have today), the metrics of specific ages are obsolete things.
even if everyone could have all their bills paid for them so they could learn all day at any age, it's ludicrous to suggest this would "obsolete" the discussion of how to treat intelligent kids in relation to others.
also fluid intelligence declines over time so it is absolutely in society's interest to identify talent and assist it as early as possible.
also fluid intelligence declines over time so it is absolutely in society's interest to identify talent and assist it as early as possible.
what if intelligence becomes something that "can be cured"
Separating kids into streams within the same school doesn’t work, because school is about enculturation, and the kids are still together at recess.
Separating gifted kids into “magnet schools” sort of works, but they’re just getting the same teachers they’d get anywhere else—we don’t really know how to select for teachers that can teach gifted kids any better, so we just select for teachers with impressive resumes.
You know what works? Academies. Specifically, military academies, though technical academies sometimes do too. Places where the students and teachers are of a selected population, not by natural talent, but by their driven-ness to grow and succeed. Those tend to product functional, intelligent, mature and mentally-healthy adults. And the difference is simple: in an academy, bad grades are stigmatized by the students, while good grades (and hard work to achieve good grades) are not. Everyone wants to be “the smartest kid in the class”, and popularity generally correlates with how well you do in the classes (i.e. everyone wants to be friends with the most-competent kids.)
The one core flaw of the academy model is that this constant mutual pushing of one-another to succeed, leaves students little time to actually get to know one-another or indulge in any outside interests. Hobbies aren’t actively discouraged, but you can only have one to the degree that it doesn’t interfere with your pursuit of top grades; so nobody ends up pursuing heavy-time-investment hobbies, since few others would, so even if one can make time themselves, there’s nobody to share it with. Since academy students are so busy working their asses off, they also essentially treat their fellow students as “coworkers” (interfacing with them only to accelerate their own productivity), skipping right over the stage where they treat the children in their own classes like friends, bonding over shared interests and the like.
Not sure if there’s any in-between, though. Give kids the time and opportunity to create their own subcultures with their own definitions of success, and all the problems of regular schooling re-emerge.
Separating gifted kids into “magnet schools” sort of works, but they’re just getting the same teachers they’d get anywhere else—we don’t really know how to select for teachers that can teach gifted kids any better, so we just select for teachers with impressive resumes.
You know what works? Academies. Specifically, military academies, though technical academies sometimes do too. Places where the students and teachers are of a selected population, not by natural talent, but by their driven-ness to grow and succeed. Those tend to product functional, intelligent, mature and mentally-healthy adults. And the difference is simple: in an academy, bad grades are stigmatized by the students, while good grades (and hard work to achieve good grades) are not. Everyone wants to be “the smartest kid in the class”, and popularity generally correlates with how well you do in the classes (i.e. everyone wants to be friends with the most-competent kids.)
The one core flaw of the academy model is that this constant mutual pushing of one-another to succeed, leaves students little time to actually get to know one-another or indulge in any outside interests. Hobbies aren’t actively discouraged, but you can only have one to the degree that it doesn’t interfere with your pursuit of top grades; so nobody ends up pursuing heavy-time-investment hobbies, since few others would, so even if one can make time themselves, there’s nobody to share it with. Since academy students are so busy working their asses off, they also essentially treat their fellow students as “coworkers” (interfacing with them only to accelerate their own productivity), skipping right over the stage where they treat the children in their own classes like friends, bonding over shared interests and the like.
Not sure if there’s any in-between, though. Give kids the time and opportunity to create their own subcultures with their own definitions of success, and all the problems of regular schooling re-emerge.
Same teachers as anywhere else? At my public magnet school I was taught by a National Teacher of the Year, a board member of a national mathematics group, and a few PhDs. The faculty needed to guide/craft winning entries for prestigious science competitions, and coach nationally-competitive mathematics teams, and teach classes years past Advanced Placement courses. That is not your run-of-the-mill teacher.
The faculty I had was enthusiastically involved in all of these things and performed well. The few exceptions that did not live up to that level were well known, and the very involved parents pressured the principal and leadership to change at every opportunity - but public schools don't have much flexibility for getting rid of teachers.
Of course, the caliber of the faculty is determined by many factors, and other magnet schools may have terrible teachers. But it is up to the principal, school board/leadership, parents, and teachers to give the kids the opportunity to reach their potential.
The faculty I had was enthusiastically involved in all of these things and performed well. The few exceptions that did not live up to that level were well known, and the very involved parents pressured the principal and leadership to change at every opportunity - but public schools don't have much flexibility for getting rid of teachers.
Of course, the caliber of the faculty is determined by many factors, and other magnet schools may have terrible teachers. But it is up to the principal, school board/leadership, parents, and teachers to give the kids the opportunity to reach their potential.
This article largely comes down to the age-old trade-off that societies need to make: when is the individual more important vs when is the group more important?
It seems clear that people in the upper half of the ability range suffer when the very top of the ability range are creamed off. Does hot-housing the very top make up for the losses in the almost-good-enough?
This is a value judgement, and I think it's disingenuous to say one is absolutely a better trade-off than the other.
There's a lot of conflation by other people on this topic with the social structure of US middle and high schools, with all the bullying. I think that's an orthogonal topic and specific to US, and distinct from streaming / hot-housing.
It seems clear that people in the upper half of the ability range suffer when the very top of the ability range are creamed off. Does hot-housing the very top make up for the losses in the almost-good-enough?
This is a value judgement, and I think it's disingenuous to say one is absolutely a better trade-off than the other.
There's a lot of conflation by other people on this topic with the social structure of US middle and high schools, with all the bullying. I think that's an orthogonal topic and specific to US, and distinct from streaming / hot-housing.
My two cents:
1) Sometimes I wish I had the opportunity to get special education, but it seems that most people complain about bullying and liked gifted education to be protected from bullying - thank God bullying was not a big problem for me.
2) Looking in retrospect, I can remember that many colleagues and friends were also gifted in some way or another. They just didn't care as much to get high grades.
There was one guy that learnt English just from watching VHS movies, he could listen to a music and understand it, something I can't do even today. Another guy slacked the whole year and bet everything on the final exam (and passed every time), he played guitar and keyboard (other 2 things I can't do).
1) Sometimes I wish I had the opportunity to get special education, but it seems that most people complain about bullying and liked gifted education to be protected from bullying - thank God bullying was not a big problem for me.
2) Looking in retrospect, I can remember that many colleagues and friends were also gifted in some way or another. They just didn't care as much to get high grades.
There was one guy that learnt English just from watching VHS movies, he could listen to a music and understand it, something I can't do even today. Another guy slacked the whole year and bet everything on the final exam (and passed every time), he played guitar and keyboard (other 2 things I can't do).
Hm. I didn't get identified as gifted until eighth grade and I don't think about it very hard these days. I still struggled to make friends after I was placed in a gifted program, and in hindsight wasn't being challenged in my courses. In college I envied students that went to more rigorous schools, partly because I struggled a lot more with my coursework. I think being labelled as gifted wasn't a very good thing for me, and that I should have been encouraged to pursue my interests more instead.
Curiously, he doesn't seem to present any numbers on the outcome for the gifted children. All he says is that it is better for the other children if they learn together with the gifted children.
I think parents of gifted children are first concerned with how well their own children do, not the others.
I question that even "learning together" as in school is the most effective way to learn. Some homeschoolers achieve stellar results (see Polgar sisters), indicating that there may be better ways.
I think parents of gifted children are first concerned with how well their own children do, not the others.
I question that even "learning together" as in school is the most effective way to learn. Some homeschoolers achieve stellar results (see Polgar sisters), indicating that there may be better ways.
What's with the constant attacks on testing, achievement and merit? It seems like every other week there is something attacking the SAT, scores, testing, achievement, etc.
i am compelled to bring up "growth mindset". the author of this article, Jo Boaler published this book [0] which is about as textbook Growth Mindset as you can get. the general idea is that there's very little real talent gap between people, it's all societal or whatnot.
Growth Mindset is weak scientifically. I believe that the belief in it drives articles such as this submission, so I think it is directly related.
https://slatestarcodex.com/2015/04/08/no-clarity-around-grow...
https://slatestarcodex.com/2015/05/07/growth-mindset-4-growt...
https://www.buzzfeed.com/tomchivers/what-is-your-mindset
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carol_Dweck#Criticism
important to note that there is a necessary baseline necessary for someone's potential to be unlocked. you can't be starving with poor nutrition and no education and become einstein. stable home environment is important. baseline being necessary to unlock talent does not mean talent is not important.
[0] https://www.amazon.com/Limitless-Mind-Learn-Without-Barriers...
Growth Mindset is weak scientifically. I believe that the belief in it drives articles such as this submission, so I think it is directly related.
https://slatestarcodex.com/2015/04/08/no-clarity-around-grow...
https://slatestarcodex.com/2015/05/07/growth-mindset-4-growt...
https://www.buzzfeed.com/tomchivers/what-is-your-mindset
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carol_Dweck#Criticism
important to note that there is a necessary baseline necessary for someone's potential to be unlocked. you can't be starving with poor nutrition and no education and become einstein. stable home environment is important. baseline being necessary to unlock talent does not mean talent is not important.
[0] https://www.amazon.com/Limitless-Mind-Learn-Without-Barriers...
It does a great disservice to smart kids to pick them out of the regular rank and file completely. You really need to be aware that stupid people exist, and how to deal with them. And that they are still people.
There are a lot of smart people that have spent their entire lives in a bubble that is only inhabited by people at least a standard deviation above average, if not more. And it shows.
There are a lot of smart people that have spent their entire lives in a bubble that is only inhabited by people at least a standard deviation above average, if not more. And it shows.
Seems like the gifted kids are teaching the rest of the students. Maybe the school should be paying them a salary for doing their job.
One Problem is that parents will try and get into the GT schools by hiring some tutor to help them prepare. The reality is that some of these kids arent really gifted and talented and doesent learn easilyy which actually makes their lives horrible when they mannage to get in.
In my Ontario school the advanced classes were simply an option. Anyone could enrol. You get the advantage of mostly kids who want to learn without the social difficulties. Nobody is told that they're 'special/not special'. It works.
Lawyer, FB exec, doctor, ... the cohort of my talented and gifted class would beg to differ.
I believe a focus the whys would be helpful in this discussion. Most comments seem to accept the status quo rather than asking
Why do we have bullies?
Why is being smart "not cool"?
The article headline is misleading: the subhead gets at the real issue: "The inherent dangers in telling students that their abilities are fixed".
Really there just needs to be a much higher teacher/student ratio all around so that every learner can get the unique attention they deserve.
"Better achievement" isn't the only relevant metric. There are plenty of other reasons why separation could be justified.
In sports it is the default to bring together similar talented kids. Why not also do the same when studying?
So wait, what exactly is meant by "de-tracked"? Does that mean that students are not allowed to advance faster if they happen to be quicker at mastering certain subjects? If I placed into Algebra in middle school when the "normal" course for my grade is Pre-Algebra, would I be allowed to take Algebra or would I be forced to take Pre-Algebra?
If so, then given how much I struggled to stay engaged even with "tracked" courses, I can guarantee that I wouldn't have graduated high school. I would've fallen even harder into the "I already know I'm gonna pass all the quizzes and tests, so why bother with paying attention in class or doing this homework?" trap.
I'm fully on-board with helping students get out of academic ruts and regain their footing and not feel like they're being left behind, and giving them whatever extra resources are necessary to help them do so. I'm not at all on-board with holding back the higher-achieving students to give some illusion that "hey, you poor-achieving student's aren't so poor-achieving after all". It's an insult to both sets of students.
----
The article's sources, meanwhile, don't seem to actually relate to what's written in the article. Most egregious:
> [Eight Bay Area school districts found similar results] when they de-tracked middle-school mathematics and provided professional development to teachers. In 2014, 63 percent of students were in advanced classes, whereas in 2015 only 12 percent were in advanced classes and everyone else was taking Math 8. The overall achievement of the students significantly increased after de-tracking. The cohort of students in eighth-grade mathematics in 2015 were 15 months ahead of the previous cohort of students who were mainly in advanced classes.
The link (the part between square-brackets) points to a screenshot of a report (not the report itself, a screenshot of it; who in the actual hell does that‽) that has zero to do with the text after it.
> Recent national data show the same downsides to ability grouping: [In the National Assessment of Educational Progress study for 2017], elementary schools that reported using reading groups “almost always” scored lower on average than those that used them “hardly ever.”
Of the three links within that linked source, zero of them contain the phrases "almost always" or "hardly ever". Whence did the author quote these phrases?
> The Hechinger Report provides in-depth, fact-based, unbiased reporting on education that is free to all readers.
Absolutely nothing about this article was in-depth, I was unable (in the ten minutes I allotted myself to read this article and actually check sources) to actually validate whether or not it was fact-based (which leads me to believe it was not), and I get a strong feeling that nothing about this article was unbiased.
If so, then given how much I struggled to stay engaged even with "tracked" courses, I can guarantee that I wouldn't have graduated high school. I would've fallen even harder into the "I already know I'm gonna pass all the quizzes and tests, so why bother with paying attention in class or doing this homework?" trap.
I'm fully on-board with helping students get out of academic ruts and regain their footing and not feel like they're being left behind, and giving them whatever extra resources are necessary to help them do so. I'm not at all on-board with holding back the higher-achieving students to give some illusion that "hey, you poor-achieving student's aren't so poor-achieving after all". It's an insult to both sets of students.
----
The article's sources, meanwhile, don't seem to actually relate to what's written in the article. Most egregious:
> [Eight Bay Area school districts found similar results] when they de-tracked middle-school mathematics and provided professional development to teachers. In 2014, 63 percent of students were in advanced classes, whereas in 2015 only 12 percent were in advanced classes and everyone else was taking Math 8. The overall achievement of the students significantly increased after de-tracking. The cohort of students in eighth-grade mathematics in 2015 were 15 months ahead of the previous cohort of students who were mainly in advanced classes.
The link (the part between square-brackets) points to a screenshot of a report (not the report itself, a screenshot of it; who in the actual hell does that‽) that has zero to do with the text after it.
> Recent national data show the same downsides to ability grouping: [In the National Assessment of Educational Progress study for 2017], elementary schools that reported using reading groups “almost always” scored lower on average than those that used them “hardly ever.”
Of the three links within that linked source, zero of them contain the phrases "almost always" or "hardly ever". Whence did the author quote these phrases?
> The Hechinger Report provides in-depth, fact-based, unbiased reporting on education that is free to all readers.
Absolutely nothing about this article was in-depth, I was unable (in the ten minutes I allotted myself to read this article and actually check sources) to actually validate whether or not it was fact-based (which leads me to believe it was not), and I get a strong feeling that nothing about this article was unbiased.
I'm in favor of single gender schools. I went to both coed and boys only grammar school in the UK, and the latter was much better. Bullying was much lesd without girls around to impress. Everyone was friendlier too, even between jock and nerd cliches. It was actually cool to do well in school. For those who wanted girlfriends, there was an all girl school they could go visit once school let out. Much better system than all the coed schools I ever attended in the US, UK and Maledives.
Grade advancement and radical acceleration of the profoundly gifted in a 20 year study:
https://www.davidsongifted.org/search-database/entry/a10489
https://www.davidsongifted.org/search-database/entry/a10489
The author of this article is an academic fraud who makes unsubstantiated claims in everything she does. Jo Boaler has an agenda without the data to support it, and her lies are used to support structural changes to school programs. Instead of responding to critics with facts and information, she just calls everyone who criticizes her a “bully”.
https://www.nonpartisaneducation.org/Review/Essays/v8n5.htm
https://www.nonpartisaneducation.org/Review/Essays/v8n5.htm
what are your thoughts on this? https://web.stanford.edu/~joboaler/Jo-Boaler-reveals-attacks...
Well, this citation: "For instance, after San Francisco Unified de-tracked math, the proportion of students failing algebra fell from 40 percent to 8"
Comes from this article:
https://www.nctm.org/uploadedFiles/Standards_and_Positions/W...
But as you can see, the change involved moving Algebra 1 from eight grade to ninth grade. Withholding this fact is pretty egregious in my opinion.
I tried looking for the other numbers she mentions by following her links, but the links she provided didn't contain those numbers. And the pdf I linked here wasn't provided by her, in fact not a single one of the numbers she used were supported by her links. I'd guess that the other numbers have similar problems as this one, but I can't know since she didn't provide a way for me to see where those numbers came from.
About the conflict between her and the others, it is hard to know who is right or not so I don't know. But judging by this opinion piece she cares more about her agenda than actual truth.
Comes from this article:
https://www.nctm.org/uploadedFiles/Standards_and_Positions/W...
But as you can see, the change involved moving Algebra 1 from eight grade to ninth grade. Withholding this fact is pretty egregious in my opinion.
I tried looking for the other numbers she mentions by following her links, but the links she provided didn't contain those numbers. And the pdf I linked here wasn't provided by her, in fact not a single one of the numbers she used were supported by her links. I'd guess that the other numbers have similar problems as this one, but I can't know since she didn't provide a way for me to see where those numbers came from.
About the conflict between her and the others, it is hard to know who is right or not so I don't know. But judging by this opinion piece she cares more about her agenda than actual truth.
She does absolutely nothing to dispute the points they made about her actual research. It’s ad hominem attacks on her critics and pointing out her own credentials. She’s never refuted any of their attacks on her work itself, because she knows her work can never be replicated.
Did or did you not create a new account solely to bash on Dr. Boaler?
I did not. However, her continued attacks on real science did upset me enough to make a new account to comment (I forgot my old password). But if I had made an anonymous account to bash her it would make sense, considering the irrational rabid behavior of her fan base that ignores all of the reproducible studies in favor of her feel-good frauds.
Actually the evidence suggests that you did create this account for that purpose. Either way, we've banned the account for breaking the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21455081. Please stop creating accounts to do that on HN.
Fake news like always. The high achievers need to work with other high achievers to be productive. This happens naturally in the free market and real world (FANG).
Educational bureaucrats are compromised dregs and monsters.
Their paymasters want high-value cogs. Gifted program is there to preserve the value. The rest of the program is there to reduce them to cogs. The result is--at best!--broken people with big bank accounts and nice offices, struggling to fill the void.
In other words, home-school your kids. Give them goals outside of pleasing some salaryperson who doesn't even like them.
In other words, home-school your kids. Give them goals outside of pleasing some salaryperson who doesn't even like them.
Yes, homeschool should be considered as at least an option if you care about your childrens' education.
The rest of the parent comment is paranoid drivel, which I do not endorse.
The rest of the parent comment is paranoid drivel, which I do not endorse.
did you go to public school? an ordinary one?
Some of the time. Define "ordinary".
Also state why you think that's a relevant question.
Also state why you think that's a relevant question.
"Ordinary" being the typical sort of public school most children in your city/county/etc would go to. A school that pre-selects students based on race, wealth, test scores, etc would not count as ordinary for obvious reasons.
If what I wrote was drivel, it should be very easy to refute. Just labeling it as drivel seems like a cop-out--driven more by ideology than first-hand experience.
If what I wrote was drivel, it should be very easy to refute. Just labeling it as drivel seems like a cop-out--driven more by ideology than first-hand experience.
By your definition, yes, I went to an ordinary school.
My personal experience is against your position, for what it's worth.
>>> Their paymasters want high-value cogs.
> If what I wrote was drivel, it should be very easy to refute.
You made the claim. You have the burden of proof. Show that either the educational bureaucrats have a "paymaster" that is different from the state bureaucracy, or that the higher-ups in the state bureaucracy want "high-value cogs".
My personal experience is against your position, for what it's worth.
>>> Their paymasters want high-value cogs.
> If what I wrote was drivel, it should be very easy to refute.
You made the claim. You have the burden of proof. Show that either the educational bureaucrats have a "paymaster" that is different from the state bureaucracy, or that the higher-ups in the state bureaucracy want "high-value cogs".
"educational bureaucrats" includes "state bureaucracy". They're just pocket-lining middlemen. They have no agency. The final "paymasters" would be corporations, small businesses, and their PR agents in the non-profit sector.
Examples:
- textbooks--topics that haven't changed in centuries--better-covered by texts from generations ago. school system still buys sorry books at $100+ a pop because salesgirl wined-and-dined the right batch of bureaucrats. pearson, mc-graw, et al spend a few thousand, then rake in millions.
- job training--local corp wants more welders/java programmers/truckers, drops some cash on school board members (directly or indirectly), then bibbity-bobbity-boo there's a brand new training center attached to a high school for some thing that I would barely even consider to be education. again, leverage to hell-and-back. tens of thousands in bribes, millions in taxpayer $$$ for free worker training & wage reduction.
- educational software--oh my God. have you even seen some of the shit they waste the kids' time with these days. how does it come about? same story as the rest.
- religion--the motive behind most western art and history, be it protagonist or antagonist. can't talk about it though--massive black hole in any sort of humanities education.
- owned teachers--the front-line infantry, who should be able to offer constructive insights into the process are utterly powerless. too poorly paid to accumulate f-you money, and so terrified of getting kicked out before their pensions vest, they must keep their opinions to themselves and quietly tow the line.
- poor accreditation--by the numbers, education programs at colleges have notoriously low standards. verified by personal experience. we had math teachers who couldn't multiply, and english teachers who couldn't diagram a sentence. thank God for the teacher's edition!
I could go on, and on, and on...
Examples:
- textbooks--topics that haven't changed in centuries--better-covered by texts from generations ago. school system still buys sorry books at $100+ a pop because salesgirl wined-and-dined the right batch of bureaucrats. pearson, mc-graw, et al spend a few thousand, then rake in millions.
- job training--local corp wants more welders/java programmers/truckers, drops some cash on school board members (directly or indirectly), then bibbity-bobbity-boo there's a brand new training center attached to a high school for some thing that I would barely even consider to be education. again, leverage to hell-and-back. tens of thousands in bribes, millions in taxpayer $$$ for free worker training & wage reduction.
- educational software--oh my God. have you even seen some of the shit they waste the kids' time with these days. how does it come about? same story as the rest.
- religion--the motive behind most western art and history, be it protagonist or antagonist. can't talk about it though--massive black hole in any sort of humanities education.
- owned teachers--the front-line infantry, who should be able to offer constructive insights into the process are utterly powerless. too poorly paid to accumulate f-you money, and so terrified of getting kicked out before their pensions vest, they must keep their opinions to themselves and quietly tow the line.
- poor accreditation--by the numbers, education programs at colleges have notoriously low standards. verified by personal experience. we had math teachers who couldn't multiply, and english teachers who couldn't diagram a sentence. thank God for the teacher's edition!
I could go on, and on, and on...
You show several examples of bureaucrats making decisions that other people make money off of. But you said "paymasters". Got any evidence of "pay"? Or just evidence of bad decisions and suspicion of pay?
I grant you that, if you are correct, it would explain a lot. It would explain why we spend so much on education for so little result. But, as I asked, do you have evidence of pay?
And "paymaster", to me, doesn't imply just a little cash under the table. It means that they're getting paid something in the neighborhood of their salary, or more. (Maybe that's just how the word strikes me.)
I grant you that, if you are correct, it would explain a lot. It would explain why we spend so much on education for so little result. But, as I asked, do you have evidence of pay?
And "paymaster", to me, doesn't imply just a little cash under the table. It means that they're getting paid something in the neighborhood of their salary, or more. (Maybe that's just how the word strikes me.)
Oh my sweet summer child! This is how the world works. Look at the governors, the congress, the president!
The disconnect is that you are approaching this as someone who is A) spending his own money, and B) not a dummy.
Soaking the taxpayer for "just" a few hundred thousand for a nice steak dinner happens all the time. They're state employees. It's not their money, and it's not like they're going to get fired for it.
edit: EVIDENCE. used to be married to a professor on textbook committee. textbook selection time is always a month of upscale dining. for higher-rent example, look at the epstein/ito/lessig saga at MIT. befriend sales guys at any big company, and they can give you examples from morning to midnight. open your eyes. it is hidden in plain sight.
The disconnect is that you are approaching this as someone who is A) spending his own money, and B) not a dummy.
Soaking the taxpayer for "just" a few hundred thousand for a nice steak dinner happens all the time. They're state employees. It's not their money, and it's not like they're going to get fired for it.
edit: EVIDENCE. used to be married to a professor on textbook committee. textbook selection time is always a month of upscale dining. for higher-rent example, look at the epstein/ito/lessig saga at MIT. befriend sales guys at any big company, and they can give you examples from morning to midnight. open your eyes. it is hidden in plain sight.
"This is just how the world works" is not evidence. Since you seem unwilling to present any, I'm going to assume that you have none.
and since the rate-limit is probably off by now, i will continue:
- we have a website to track how hard the doctors are being bribed to prescribe certain medications. they were probably bribed even harder before the disclosure requirement.
- we have F-35 project--over a trillion in development according to some sources. many reports that it loses to its 40-yr-old predecessor. one only needs to look at the revolving-door between military brass and defense contractors to see how this happens. money doesn't even need to change hands while they're employed by the government--just dangle a juicy board position for when they "retire"
- in a similar vein, remember the number bob rubin pulled in the citibank/travelers merger
- DC is poster child for dropping a few hundred K through lobbyists and campaign contributions, then getting millions in return for it.
of course, none of this could ever happen in public education.
- we have a website to track how hard the doctors are being bribed to prescribe certain medications. they were probably bribed even harder before the disclosure requirement.
- we have F-35 project--over a trillion in development according to some sources. many reports that it loses to its 40-yr-old predecessor. one only needs to look at the revolving-door between military brass and defense contractors to see how this happens. money doesn't even need to change hands while they're employed by the government--just dangle a juicy board position for when they "retire"
- in a similar vein, remember the number bob rubin pulled in the citibank/travelers merger
- DC is poster child for dropping a few hundred K through lobbyists and campaign contributions, then getting millions in return for it.
of course, none of this could ever happen in public education.
>religion--the motive behind most western art and history, be it protagonist or antagonist. can't talk about it though--massive black hole in any sort of humanities education.
Went to a public school in California. We learned plenty about religion, of all kinds. We even read parts of the Bible during literature class. Perhaps you should re-examine your assumptions.
Went to a public school in California. We learned plenty about religion, of all kinds. We even read parts of the Bible during literature class. Perhaps you should re-examine your assumptions.
Which did they spend more time on: Christianity or Shakespeare? Judaism or Judy Blume?
We got an excerpt from Ecclesiastes, and snippets about whatever "The Church" was up to in different periods of European history. A very low bar.
We got an excerpt from Ecclesiastes, and snippets about whatever "The Church" was up to in different periods of European history. A very low bar.
Let's say there is a city (somewhere in the northern half of the US) that has seen better days, due to the rise and fall of local industry in the 20th century, and there is a town/suburb that has much higher property values and better schools. The students in the suburban school(s) are much more likely to go to college than in the city schools. The suburb is nearly all white, with lots of parents with well-paying STEM jobs, while the city is not. De facto segregation. Which public school is "ordinary"?
will also add that i think you asked a perfectly fair question, and have no idea why you've been downvoted
This is a media falsehood. Money != Quality Education.
Lived in one city. Higher wages, higher level of overall education, multiple colleges, very high per-pupil expenditure--terrible performance.
Lived in a rural town. Low wages, uneducated, poor, lower per-pupil expenditure--outstanding school performance.
I'll ponder some other hypothesis, but money ain't it.
edit: will add--before someone derps me on sample size--that a careful review of the stats will establish this as the rule rather than the exception.
Lived in one city. Higher wages, higher level of overall education, multiple colleges, very high per-pupil expenditure--terrible performance.
Lived in a rural town. Low wages, uneducated, poor, lower per-pupil expenditure--outstanding school performance.
I'll ponder some other hypothesis, but money ain't it.
edit: will add--before someone derps me on sample size--that a careful review of the stats will establish this as the rule rather than the exception.
The arrogance and ignorance in some of these comments is astounding
Damn, America is so rich it just invents problems. When I was a child, you worked hard in school or your life was going to suck. By American standards, your life already sucked because you defecated in the fields. So you did everything in your capacity to not keep it that way.
I'm in America now. Did it the hard way. It wasn't as easy as showing up to class and having the choice of working hard to apply to some of the best educational institutions in the world.
Bloody hell, it's no wonder everyone in America is terrified of immigrants. They're going to eat your lunch because they will go through all these things that ruin you and instead come out resilient and able instead of reduced to just smoking weed all the time or whatever other activity you've decided to blame on society.
I'm in America now. Did it the hard way. It wasn't as easy as showing up to class and having the choice of working hard to apply to some of the best educational institutions in the world.
Bloody hell, it's no wonder everyone in America is terrified of immigrants. They're going to eat your lunch because they will go through all these things that ruin you and instead come out resilient and able instead of reduced to just smoking weed all the time or whatever other activity you've decided to blame on society.
Me, I smoke weed and that’s about the only thing I’ve really done consistently since high school.. more consistently than music, and programming, even.
Frankly, I wish I had been better separated from the other kids. I would have been far happier in middle school just hanging around other nice, smart people. (With a few exceptions, the smart kids tended to be kind). The mixture with the “gen pop” led to bullying, repeated physical abuse and harassment by other kids from ages 10-12. This was decades ago when physical abuse amongst minors was often ignored, even by police.
By freshman year of high school, I was worn down and switched back to some non-honors classes mid-term. This unfortunately led to dysfunctional friendships with the “cool” kids (same bully crowd), introduction to drugs and a low achievement life. There was some form of Florence nightingale syndrome involved here, due to unresolved physical abuse leading to friendships with the abusers in high school.
Separating gifted children for accelerated learning is great. Ignoring social development by blindly sticking all kids together in unstructured environments where bullying and physical abuse is allowed to persist will override any hope for some kids. I know, I was there. Still here.