TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

Separating gifted children hasn't led to better achievement

324 点作者 2arrs2ells超过 5 年前

69 条评论

hackerrenews超过 5 年前
I was fourth picked for g&amp;t. First and second pick ended up being quite successful, as did the third picked. One has a high up, prestigious position at Amazon and the other retired from Microsoft wealthy.<p>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.<p>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.<p>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.<p>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.
评论 #21448153 未加载
评论 #21448255 未加载
评论 #21448274 未加载
评论 #21448444 未加载
评论 #21450142 未加载
评论 #21449263 未加载
评论 #21448608 未加载
评论 #21449756 未加载
评论 #21449508 未加载
评论 #21449974 未加载
评论 #21452686 未加载
评论 #21451383 未加载
评论 #21448106 未加载
评论 #21448226 未加载
评论 #21450277 未加载
评论 #21448301 未加载
dguido超过 5 年前
Here&#x27;s the opposite perspective: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.baltimoresun.com&#x2F;opinion&#x2F;bs-xpm-2012-02-06-bs-ed-gifted-education-20120206-story.html" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.baltimoresun.com&#x2F;opinion&#x2F;bs-xpm-2012-02-06-bs-ed...</a><p>&gt; But as the facts now show, smart kids don&#x27;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.<p>Here&#x27;s IMHO a better perspective on how to &quot;close the excellence gap&quot; in NYC schools, in particular, by changing the way talent is identified and by using local norms. <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;podcasts.apple.com&#x2F;us&#x2F;podcast&#x2F;episode-11-what-can-we-learn-from-new-york-city-selective&#x2F;id1435807749?i=1000441117501" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;podcasts.apple.com&#x2F;us&#x2F;podcast&#x2F;episode-11-what-can-we...</a><p>Finally, here&#x27;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.
评论 #21448336 未加载
评论 #21448386 未加载
评论 #21448369 未加载
mancerayder超过 5 年前
<i>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.</i><p>So is the topic achievement, or is the topic their feelings?<p>In a Postmodern twist of language, we&#x27;ve rhetorically connected a statistic around feelings and a statistic around achievement, but those are two separate items.<p>They eliminated advanced math classes until 10th great? I&#x27;m EXTREMELY happy I&#x27;m old now, because when I was a kid ANY class I took with the average or the below average, I was bullied.<p>Some people are better thinkers, some people are better as leaders, fighters or lifters of boxes. I&#x27;m sorry, Postmodernists, we&#x27;re not equal and never will be.<p>In NYC they&#x27;re wanting to remove the gifted and talented classes not because they don&#x27;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.
评论 #21448417 未加载
评论 #21450376 未加载
评论 #21450226 未加载
评论 #21448958 未加载
xhkkffbf超过 5 年前
I have to say that this result is wildly different from my experience and that of my children. It&#x27;s boring to sit in class redoing a simple math problem just because someone wants to detrack math.<p>A friend of mine who is a teacher says that he has MORE discipline problems from the smart kids who aren&#x27;t challenged enough.<p>The real secret should be to embrace independent, computer-mediated systems like Khan Academy. Everyone can move at their own pace. That&#x27;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&#x27;t know why we cling to the old sage-on-a-stage model.
评论 #21448022 未加载
评论 #21448381 未加载
评论 #21448329 未加载
评论 #21448623 未加载
评论 #21456612 未加载
评论 #21448757 未加载
评论 #21447986 未加载
underpand超过 5 年前
The SF algebra change is NOT a success. Most of the stats are cherrypicked and misleading.<p>&gt; 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.<p>This compares the number of <i>8th graders</i> who failed Algebra 1 before the change to the number of <i>9th graders</i> 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.<p>The following is arguably the most important metric that is omitted. From another article:<p>&gt; While more students are taking precalculus now, the enrollment in Advanced Placement calculus courses has <i>declined by nearly 13 percent</i> over the past two years.
评论 #21450225 未加载
ryandrake超过 5 年前
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&#x27;s performance and capability. From what I could tell it was rougly:<p>1. Gifted &#x2F; clearly university-bound<p>2. Potential college prep<p>3. Community college<p>4. Normal underperformers<p>5. Little hope, likely will drop out<p>6. No future besides unemployment or prison<p>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 &quot;general population&quot; full of kids whose talents included arson and filing other kids&#x27; teeth down in the metal shop. Not sure why they ended the program, because it really made school bearable.
评论 #21448744 未加载
评论 #21449706 未加载
评论 #21450513 未加载
评论 #21450967 未加载
评论 #21449155 未加载
评论 #21450387 未加载
评论 #21449476 未加载
评论 #21449453 未加载
评论 #21448656 未加载
评论 #21449148 未加载
nine_k超过 5 年前
I&#x27;d just hazard to say that the current school system is not very functional.<p>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.<p>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.<p>Most of the kids also have a very vague idea <i>why</i> 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.<p>Teaching children is what we, as a society, haven&#x27;t yet figured out well enough.
评论 #21448349 未加载
vanniv超过 5 年前
This (opinion) article seems to be making the claim that separating out all of the top kids makes the group not selected perform worse.<p>(The measurement of &quot;achievement&quot; used is percentage of students failing a rudimentary algebra class and percentage of students enrolling in an advanced mathematics class)<p>This seems uncontroversial -- the smart kids will benefit the rest by their presence, and being labelled as not-smart probably doesn&#x27;t help achievement very much.<p>But the purpose of separating out the really gifted kids was never for the benefit of the folks that couldn&#x27;t cut it -- it was for the benefit of the gifted kids so that they could actually achieve at the level of their ability.<p>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.
sershe超过 5 年前
I actually wonder what&#x27;s up with bullying in US schools.<p>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&#x2F;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.<p>Sure, I hear it was worse outside of Moscow, but even in Moscow an average student&#x27;s family in the 90ies was way poorer than say in Ohio. Outside of Moscow it&#x27;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.<p>What&#x27;s up with that?
评论 #21450425 未加载
评论 #21453018 未加载
评论 #21451963 未加载
评论 #21459190 未加载
评论 #21450373 未加载
评论 #21450968 未加载
harry8超过 5 年前
Bogus headline.<p>&quot;Separating gifted from non-gifted children hasn&#x27;t led to better overall achievement of both groups combined.&quot;<p>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.<p>(Just quietly, I&#x27;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).
jacobsenscott超过 5 年前
Getting classified as G&amp;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&#x27;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&#x27;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&#x27;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.
评论 #21449953 未加载
gojomo超过 5 年前
It&#x27;s hard to find this sort of op-ed convincing when it includes hard-to-interpret imprecise word-salad like:<p>&gt; 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.<p>Huh? What&#x27;s &quot;Math 8&quot;? How was &quot;overall achievement&quot; measured?<p>How could decreasing the proportion of students in &quot;advanced classes&quot; from 63% to 12% result in a &quot;cohort of students&quot; that is &quot;15 months ahead&quot; of the students who were in &quot;advanced classes&quot;? (What definitions of &quot;advanced&quot; could possibly mean 15 months behind &quot;non-advanced&quot; coursework?)<p>If there&#x27;s a strong case, and the writer understands it, it would be explained better than this – and probably include tables &amp; graphs, rather than just rambling assertions like the above paragraph.
panda88888超过 5 年前
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 &quot;varsity&quot; 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.
cortesoft超过 5 年前
How do we help those kids that are in &#x27;gen pop&#x27;, though? Simply pulling the smarter kids out, helping them, and ignoring the rest doesn&#x27;t seem like a good answer, either.<p>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.
评论 #21448546 未加载
评论 #21448612 未加载
评论 #21449248 未加载
评论 #21449007 未加载
评论 #21448472 未加载
评论 #21449141 未加载
dragonwriter超过 5 年前
&gt; 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.<p>This isn&#x27;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.)<p>It&#x27;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 <i>without</i> 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.
notus超过 5 年前
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&#x27;t think it added any value into my life ever except variety of experience. I also think it made other students who weren&#x27;t in it feel kind of bad because they didn&#x27;t get to go do anything. They should have just done it for everyone IMO.
评论 #21447884 未加载
vintermann超过 5 年前
Lots of people sharing stories about how fortunate they were to be saved from bullying and chaos.<p>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:<p>* you would actually have done as well if you stayed<p>* you would have done worse if you stayed, but others who went into gifted programs would have done better if they didn&#x27;t, making up for it<p>* people like you are just too rare to make a difference in the statistics.<p>My older brother wasn&#x27;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.<p>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&#x27;t all it&#x27;s cracked up to be (If the study can be believed).
dre54673超过 5 年前
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&#x27;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.<p>I&#x27;m not going to lie, being separated from the &quot;smart&quot; 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&#x27;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&#x27;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.<p>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&#x27;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&#x27;t.<p>Looking back, the biggest benefit of being in gifted programs was simply that the teachers were better. So the kids who didn&#x27;t necessarily need better teachers got the best ones, while the rest got packets to read through. The kids also weren&#x27;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&#x27;t paid enough. School is more of a place to put children while parents work than it is a place to educate.
Glyptodon超过 5 年前
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.<p>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&#x27;s what a poor combined class is like for &quot;G&amp;T&quot; students (and I had a couple real rough years when things felt like that). But that&#x27;s also a far from saying &quot;GATE kids&quot; should always be &quot;tracked&quot; or feel like they&#x27;re stuck in a particular lane and loaded down with ridiculous expectations.
kendallpark超过 5 年前
There a lot more options than tracked vs non-tracked.<p>My public school district implemented a combination of pull-out programs, advanced sections, and tracking on a per-subject and sometimes per-previous year&#x27;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&#x27;t a notion of &quot;track&quot; because most students were in a hodgepodge of &quot;advanced&#x2F;ahead&quot; and &quot;regular&quot; courses, depending on the subject, depending on the previous year&#x27;s performance, or depending on whether they themselves decided to sign up for the class or not.<p>A high school kid could:<p>- 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.)<p>- be in one of three math cohorts<p>- be in the honors or regular section of a science course (based on the previous year&#x27;s science performance). It was always the same science subject (eg, honors bio vs bio).<p>- 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).<p>- have been in the gifted pull-out program in elementary school (no special curriculum for &quot;gifted&quot; students in high school, afaik)
jedberg超过 5 年前
When I was in High School, we didn&#x27;t have &quot;advanced math&quot; 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.<p>I ended up making friends with a senior (as a freshman) because I&#x27;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.
StanislavPetrov超过 5 年前
The problem with this article is that the author keeps talking about aggregate &quot;achievement&quot;. Is it better to slightly improve the aggregate number of children who can limp across the arbitrary &quot;achievement&quot; 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&#x27;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.
bradlys超过 5 年前
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 &quot;smart&quot; children were nicer and the rest were just bullies. I&#x27;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&#x2F;or getting too many out of school suspensions. However - gotta say - plenty of assholes at the top marks. I can&#x27;t remember any high(er) performers being very nice. Most were jerks outright. Bullying then was usually more psychological than physical but it wasn&#x27;t foregone to see physical issues.<p>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&#x27;t off limits really much either)<p>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&#x27;s basically impossible. Shit parents are ubiquitous. They seem almost universal.
gnicholas超过 5 年前
&gt; <i>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.</i><p>That doesn&#x27;t seem like much time to choose different math pathways. For example, the &quot;math kids&quot; I grew up with took several classes post-calculus in high school. How can you do that if you&#x27;re only taking calculus as a junior or possibly senior (depending on what the common coursework was up through sophomore year)?
评论 #21450294 未加载
评论 #21447741 未加载
评论 #21448033 未加载
pacaro超过 5 年前
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)<p>One point from TFA jumped out at me<p>— others shared that they’d learned they shouldn’t ask questions, as “gifted people are meant to know everything.”<p>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&#x27;t often correct (I was occasionally one of them) but they definitely kept the class from stalling
SpaceManNabs超过 5 年前
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.<p>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.
unexaminedlife超过 5 年前
I want separation, but I&#x27;m not convinced separating the &quot;cream of the crop&quot; is the right way to go.<p>What if schools were more proactive to weed out and separate the bullies from everyone else. I think we&#x27;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.
Bostonian超过 5 年前
The author is a professor at Stanford. If separating gifted children has no benefits, why doesn&#x27;t Stanford admit students at random?
评论 #21447903 未加载
评论 #21448019 未加载
评论 #21448065 未加载
Pmop超过 5 年前
Wouldn&#x27;t say about gifted children and achievement but even then, I&#x27;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 &#x27;antisocial&#x27; like I was led to believe but because the people I&#x27;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.
cloudwizard超过 5 年前
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.<p>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.<p>There is no incentive to push kids faster than 10 min. All the resources go into the 2 kids on crutches.
notadoc超过 5 年前
&gt; OPINION: Separating ‘gifted’ children hasn’t led to better achievement<p>This is an opinion piece, it is not evidence based. Why was &quot;OPINION&quot;, which is part of the original title, removed?
bane超过 5 年前
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.<p>After a year of this I asked to be excused from the program and spent the next year in not a &quot;normal&quot; 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 &quot;ball&quot; and &quot;dog&quot;. There were other elements of the GAT program that were similarly discouraging.<p>I couldn&#x27;t get out of school fast enough and it was such a damaging experience that I didn&#x27;t go back to university until years later.
评论 #21451813 未加载
privateSFacct超过 5 年前
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&#x27;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?
WheelsAtLarge超过 5 年前
The problems that smart kids encounter are the same issues that appear generation after generation. Smart kids usually don&#x27;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&#x27;s just, not reality.<p>There&#x27;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.
dak1超过 5 年前
From the article, it sounds like the measure of &#x27;better achievement&#x27; is baseline scores across all students.<p>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.<p>Not every student is going to earn a Fields Medal or develop new medical procedures, and frankly, that&#x27;s ok.<p>But we do need some who will push the boundaries.<p>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).
评论 #21448312 未加载
kazinator超过 5 年前
If students are inappropriate put into advanced classes, they will struggle, and of course that will bring down the achievement of the student body.<p>&gt; <i>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.</i><p>How did they &quot;de-track&quot; anything? Just the numbers were reshuffled. Advanced classes continued, with reduced enrollment.<p>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?
faizshah超过 5 年前
It&#x27;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.<p>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&#x27;t mentioned enough in the test score and percentile driven education age.
评论 #21448977 未加载
mltony超过 5 年前
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&#x27;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&#x27;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.
nitwit005超过 5 年前
&gt; 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.<p>I find it difficult to believe in a sudden shift in the student worldview from a relatively minor change. I&#x27;d tend to assume any effect was a shiff in classroom norms.<p>We all tend to take behavioral hints from those around us. If you go from a class where most people aren&#x27;t paying attention, to one where most people are, it can sway the behavior of the remainder.
wccrawford超过 5 年前
In elementary school, I was in the &quot;Gifted&quot; program. It meant 1 day per week I would go to the library with a teacher that taught special stuff like &quot;logic problems&quot; and doing research and making slideshows. It was a <i>lot</i> of stuff.<p>This is where I learned to program. This single skill was hugely impactful to me.<p>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.<p>Middle school had 1 class per day the same way, but it was a pale shadow of the Elementary version.<p>High school had &quot;Honors&quot; or &quot;AP&quot; (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.<p>Missing out on these 3 systems would absolutely have stunted my growth and I doubt I&#x27;d be where I am today without them.<p>My wish isn&#x27;t to separate kids, though. I wish they could <i>all</i> enjoy learning like I do. We haven&#x27;t cracked that nut yet, though, and it seems like separation is still necessary in order to give everyone their potential.
JohnBooty超过 5 年前
Gifted education (and other advanced classes) were important because it taught me it was okay to be smart and learn things.<p>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.<p>At the same time I&#x27;m glad I didn&#x27;t grow up in a bubble with only gifted kids. Coping with people different than you is an important skill.
Consultant32452超过 5 年前
I was in the gifted program. So is my daughter. It&#x27;s a nice break from the monotony of regular school but it&#x27;s not challenging in any way. It&#x27;s not really clear to me what the purpose of the program is, but it doesn&#x27;t appear to even try to challenge the students or introduce them to more interesting&#x2F;meaningful curriculum.
评论 #21451833 未加载
mattrp超过 5 年前
The problem with advanced placement &#x2F; gt &#x2F; 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?
buboard超过 5 年前
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.
评论 #21448996 未加载
derefr超过 5 年前
Separating kids into streams within the same school doesn’t work, because school is about enculturation, and the kids are still together at recess.<p>Separating gifted kids into “magnet schools” <i>sort of</i> works, but they’re just getting the same <i>teachers</i> 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.<p>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. <i>Those</i> tend to product functional, intelligent, mature and mentally-healthy adults. And the difference is simple: in an academy, <i>bad grades</i> are stigmatized <i>by the students</i>, while <i>good grades</i> (and hard work to <i>achieve</i> 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.)<p>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.<p>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.
评论 #21453168 未加载
barrkel超过 5 年前
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?<p>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?<p>This is a value judgement, and I think it&#x27;s disingenuous to say one is absolutely a better trade-off than the other.<p>There&#x27;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&#x27;s an orthogonal topic and specific to US, and distinct from streaming &#x2F; hot-housing.
epx超过 5 年前
My two cents:<p>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.<p>2) Looking in retrospect, I can remember that many colleagues and friends were also gifted in some way or another. They just didn&#x27;t care as much to get high grades.<p>There was one guy that learnt English just from watching VHS movies, he could listen to a music and understand it, something I can&#x27;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&#x27;t do).
kareninoverseas超过 5 年前
Hm. I didn&#x27;t get identified as gifted until eighth grade and I don&#x27;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&#x27;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&#x27;t a very good thing for me, and that I should have been encouraged to pursue my interests more instead.
pksdjfikkkkdsff超过 5 年前
Curiously, he doesn&#x27;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.<p>I think parents of gifted children are first concerned with how well their own children do, not the others.<p>I question that even &quot;learning together&quot; 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.
tmp20191105超过 5 年前
What&#x27;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.
Kaveren超过 5 年前
i am compelled to bring up &quot;growth mindset&quot;. 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&#x27;s very little <i>real</i> talent gap between people, it&#x27;s all societal or whatnot.<p>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.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;slatestarcodex.com&#x2F;2015&#x2F;04&#x2F;08&#x2F;no-clarity-around-growth-mindset-yet&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;slatestarcodex.com&#x2F;2015&#x2F;04&#x2F;08&#x2F;no-clarity-around-grow...</a><p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;slatestarcodex.com&#x2F;2015&#x2F;05&#x2F;07&#x2F;growth-mindset-4-growth-of-office&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;slatestarcodex.com&#x2F;2015&#x2F;05&#x2F;07&#x2F;growth-mindset-4-growt...</a><p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.buzzfeed.com&#x2F;tomchivers&#x2F;what-is-your-mindset" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.buzzfeed.com&#x2F;tomchivers&#x2F;what-is-your-mindset</a><p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Carol_Dweck#Criticism" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Carol_Dweck#Criticism</a><p>important to note that there is a necessary baseline necessary for someone&#x27;s potential to be unlocked. you can&#x27;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.<p>[0] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.amazon.com&#x2F;Limitless-Mind-Learn-Without-Barriers&#x2F;dp&#x2F;0062851748" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.amazon.com&#x2F;Limitless-Mind-Learn-Without-Barriers...</a>
thrower123超过 5 年前
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.<p>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.
pkaye超过 5 年前
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.
ThomPete超过 5 年前
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.
jariel超过 5 年前
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&#x27;re &#x27;special&#x2F;not special&#x27;. It works.
crb002超过 5 年前
Lawyer, FB exec, doctor, ... the cohort of my talented and gifted class would beg to differ.
munherty超过 5 年前
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 &quot;not cool&quot;?
pdonis超过 5 年前
The article headline is misleading: the subhead gets at the real issue: &quot;The inherent dangers in telling students that their abilities are fixed&quot;.
macawfish超过 5 年前
Really there just needs to be a much higher teacher&#x2F;student ratio all around so that every learner can get the unique attention they deserve.
naasking超过 5 年前
&quot;Better achievement&quot; isn&#x27;t the only relevant metric. There are plenty of other reasons why separation could be justified.
amai超过 5 年前
In sports it is the default to bring together similar talented kids. Why not also do the same when studying?
yellowapple超过 5 年前
So wait, what exactly is meant by &quot;de-tracked&quot;? 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 &quot;normal&quot; course for my grade is Pre-Algebra, would I be allowed to take Algebra or would I be forced to take Pre-Algebra?<p>If so, then given how much I struggled to stay engaged even with &quot;tracked&quot; courses, I can guarantee that I wouldn&#x27;t have graduated high school. I would&#x27;ve fallen even harder into the &quot;I already know I&#x27;m gonna pass all the quizzes and tests, so why bother with paying attention in class or doing this homework?&quot; trap.<p>I&#x27;m fully on-board with helping students get out of academic ruts and regain their footing and not feel like they&#x27;re being left behind, and giving them whatever extra resources are necessary to help them do so. I&#x27;m <i>not at all</i> on-board with holding back the higher-achieving students to give some illusion that &quot;hey, you poor-achieving student&#x27;s aren&#x27;t so poor-achieving after all&quot;. It&#x27;s an insult to <i>both</i> sets of students.<p>----<p>The article&#x27;s sources, meanwhile, don&#x27;t seem to actually relate to what&#x27;s written in the article. Most egregious:<p>&gt; [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.<p>The link (the part between square-brackets) points to a screenshot of a report (not the report itself, a <i>screenshot</i> of it; who in the actual hell does that‽) that has zero to do with the text after it.<p>&gt; 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.”<p>Of the three links within that linked source, zero of them contain the phrases &quot;almost always&quot; or &quot;hardly ever&quot;. Whence did the author quote these phrases?<p>&gt; The Hechinger Report provides in-depth, fact-based, unbiased reporting on education that is free to all readers.<p>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.
yters超过 5 年前
I&#x27;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.
droithomme超过 5 年前
Grade advancement and radical acceleration of the profoundly gifted in a 20 year study:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.davidsongifted.org&#x2F;search-database&#x2F;entry&#x2F;a10489" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.davidsongifted.org&#x2F;search-database&#x2F;entry&#x2F;a10489</a>
trempdig超过 5 年前
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”.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.nonpartisaneducation.org&#x2F;Review&#x2F;Essays&#x2F;v8n5.htm" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.nonpartisaneducation.org&#x2F;Review&#x2F;Essays&#x2F;v8n5.htm</a>
评论 #21450868 未加载
40something超过 5 年前
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).
jstewartmobile超过 5 年前
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.<p>In other words, home-school your kids. Give them goals outside of pleasing some salaryperson who doesn&#x27;t even like them.
评论 #21448194 未加载
macawfish超过 5 年前
The arrogance and ignorance in some of these comments is astounding
scarejunba超过 5 年前
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.<p>I&#x27;m in America now. Did it the hard way. It wasn&#x27;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.<p>Bloody hell, it&#x27;s no wonder everyone in America is terrified of immigrants. They&#x27;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&#x27;ve decided to blame on society.
评论 #21450666 未加载