Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Separating gifted children hasn't led to better achievement

hechingerreport.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 389 posts

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

#281

Post by sokoloff »

cortesoft wrote: post #167
nitrogen wrote: post #161

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.

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.

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

#282

Post by rowanG077 »

hackerrenews wrote: post #9

I was fourth picked for g&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. 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…

Your points don't have much to do with being gifted though. Is it fine if "normal" kids get physically assaulted and bullied?

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

#283

Post by [deleted] »

thatfrenchguy wrote: post #143
borski wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 actuall…

> 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 ?

[deleted]

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

#284

Post by Kaiyou »

scarface74 wrote: post #242
ryandrake wrote: post #47

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…

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…

Almost like intelligence is inheritable. Fascinating.

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

#285

Post by barry-cotter »

dluan wrote: post #274
barry-cotter wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

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.

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

#286

Post by scarface74 »

Kaiyou wrote: post #284
scarface74 wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Almost like intelligence is inheritable. Fascinating.

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?

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

#287

Post by Kbelicius »

pksdjfikkkkdsff wrote: post #246
cortesoft wrote: post #48

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?

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.

And using tax money to pay for people to help talented kids is not exploitation?

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

#288

Post by whaaswijk »

zebby wrote: post #265
sershe wrote: 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…

The difference is obvious, niggers.

Unfortunately I don't have enough karma to flag your comment. This kind of low-effort trolling adds absolutely nothing IMO.

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

#289

Post by elyobo »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #196
Spooky23 wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

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

#290

Post by thebooktocome »

barry-cotter wrote: post #285
dluan wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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.
Post reply on HN