Live data from Hacker News

Separating gifted children hasn't led to better achievement

hechingerreport.org

231–240 of 389 posts

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

#231

> 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…

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.

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

#232
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?

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

#233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

"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.

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

#234
post #232

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…

multiculturalism.

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

#235

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 s…

> 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.

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

#236

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…

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.

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

#237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

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

#238
post #232

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…

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."

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

#239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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.

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

#240
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.

Post reply on HN