Live data from Hacker News

Separating gifted children hasn't led to better achievement

hechingerreport.org

191–200 of 389 posts

Re: Separating gifted children hasn't led to better achievement

#191
> 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.

Re: Separating gifted children hasn't led to better achievement

#192
post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If mandatory school attendance were repealed, it would work itself quite quickly.

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.

Re: Separating gifted children hasn't led to better achievement

#193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

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.

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.

Re: Separating gifted children hasn't led to better achievement

#194
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.

Re: Separating gifted children hasn't led to better achievement

#195
post #58
post #8

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, inspire…

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.

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.

Re: Separating gifted children hasn't led to better achievement

#196

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…

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?

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.

Re: Separating gifted children hasn't led to better achievement

#197

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…

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.

Re: Separating gifted children hasn't led to better achievement

#199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Re: Separating gifted children hasn't led to better achievement

#200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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.

Post reply on HN