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

Gifted children are special needs children

mleverything.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 145 posts

Re: Gifted children are special needs children

#81

Post by bitshiftfaced »

kragen wrote: post #46
paxys wrote: post #6

It's crazy to me that there is so much pushback to ending a program for "gifted" kindergarteners . I'd say it's great for 4-5 year olds to be able to do...normal children things rather than have their lives ruined by their helicopter "my child is special" parents.

Fuck you. What about having our lives ruined by being imprisoned in a fucking kindergarten, full of violent screaming children? Have you ever tried to read a fucking book while surrounded by screaming children who keep hitting you? How about building a toothpick model or writing a computer program? Now imagine that those children are bigger than you, and you have the emotional maturity of a 5-year-old. Forcing childr…

Kids shouldn't have to be surrounded by "violent screaming children" period. I fail to see what giftedness has to do at all with whether or not you deserve to not have this as a learning environment.

Re: Gifted children are special needs children

#82

Post by ProllyInfamous »

dugmartin wrote: post #72
ProllyInfamous wrote: post #13

Greetings fellow travelers [0]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twice_exceptional ---- In response to OP's link, my suggestion to primary schools would be to scrap the G/T programs, and instead focus on reducing class-sizes. You should also remove any students from classrooms whom routinely distract from others' learning. Give those timesinks a broom, instead.

> You should also remove any students from classrooms whom routinely distract from others' learning. You can't do this without getting sued (at least in Massachusetts). Source: my wife is a long-time elementary school teacher and my daughter works as a one-on-one aide while she is getting her teaching degree. I don't want to start of flamewar but the current "push in" model created by educational bureaucrats creates…

>I just wish that gifted kids could get the same access to IEPs that the other tail of the curve gets.

It wasn't until I was flunking out of medical school that I realized the truth to your statement. I never learned how to learn (my 90's public school's version of G/T was to let a small group of higher-IQ children do whatever they want, including nothing).

I feel that smaller class sizes would encourage smart-but-bored students to behave better (i.e. not be the class clown I was), out of fear of social isolation. In larger classes, it becomes more difficult for a single teacher (+aides) to impart learning habits upon ALL students.

Re: Gifted children are special needs children

#83

Post by ProllyInfamous »

rKarpinski wrote: post #21
ProllyInfamous wrote: post #13

Greetings fellow travelers [0]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twice_exceptional ---- In response to OP's link, my suggestion to primary schools would be to scrap the G/T programs, and instead focus on reducing class-sizes. You should also remove any students from classrooms whom routinely distract from others' learning. Give those timesinks a broom, instead.

You basically just described what the NYC "G&T" program is. All it is smaller class sizes and less disruptive students. There are only like 4 actual accelerated learning programs out of the hundreds in NYC's "G&T".

What percentage of NYC's students are in these programs?

I was a student of public Texas ISDs, and briefly taught in Tennessee, so "public school" is an entirely different definition/beast than NYC's [probably better] education systems.

Re: Gifted children are special needs children

#84

Post by austin-cheney »

cardanome wrote: post #39
austin-cheney wrote: post #2

This talk about high performers and low performers needing focused environments to perform gets me thinking about the scenario of putting them together. I know this is not what the article is suggesting, but the thought is still there. This reminds me of conversations between the two ends of the Dunning-Kruger spectrum. In DK low performing people tend to vastly over-estimate their capabilities because their frame of…

Do you consider yourself one of those people for those " the negative space in a conversation is just words in a different form"? Where is that take even coming from? Communication styles are very cultural. Japanese is very subtext-heavy while German is very direct. Are Japanese people more intelligent than German people? Furthermore it depends on how your brain is wired. Autistic people prefer direct communication w…

> Personally, I prefer people that are more direct.

When your social intelligence is high enough you realize everybody is always direct because communication is multidimensional. Honest only occurs when the words, vocalization, and body language are all in unison. Even then honesty only matters so much if the substance of content is inaccurate or invalid. Since you brought up autism, most people attempt to mask their emotions in times of discomfort. Masking is a form of dishonesty and people who are good a communication see it as such.

As a counter example watch North Korea ambassadors speak at the UN. They are emotionless in their answers and its extremely unnatural. They do that intentionally, because no answer is ultimately safe and the greatest threat to their security comes from defiance to their own nation.

As to your last statement high performance generally describes some utility, like a test score or job skill. Strong communication skills are generally described as an aptitude as opposed to a utility.

Re: Gifted children are special needs children

#85

Post by JohnBooty »

teiferer wrote: post #16
surfmike wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Kindergarten were just play based schooling then I’d agree with you. But there is an academic component, for example learning to read, and students abilities can be radically different.

You don't need kindergarten to teach reading. Mine didn't and I did fine. (Obtained a Ph.D. degree later in life.)

What was your kindergarten like?

Was there no reading because it was academically poor or was it kind of an "alternative" learning environment ala Montessori?

(I don't know Montessori's specific ways of teaching reading)

Re: Gifted children are special needs children

#86

Post by JohnBooty »

teiferer wrote: post #69
forgotoldacc wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My parents taught me diddly squat, so I was glad my kindergarten teacher taught me how to read. That's half the reason kids are in kindergarten.

Maybe it's because I'm old and things are different now, but back in the day, first year of primary school was when everybody learned to read. Some kids already knew some (incl. me), and that didn't necessarily make life easier for them since some parts of class they were then bored. Well, you learn to deal with it. It's not like such situations never occur in adult life. I often find myself in work meetings where co…

    since some parts of class they were then bored. 
    Well, you learn to deal with it
It's a crucial life skill.

I'm highly doubtful that forcing young kids to be bored (by making them progress/learn slowly, when they could be learning more) is the best way to do it.

Re: Gifted children are special needs children

#87

Post by AnimalMuppet »

Zigurd wrote: post #80
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, but you're going to have an "ocracy" no matter what you do. So what kind of "ocracy" do you want? Incompetentocracy? Randomocracy? Celebritocracy? Nepotocracy? We're not going back to aristocracy (which essentially was nepotocracy). So what do you have that's better than meritocracy? What's wrong with letting the more talented be the ones who run things?

You seem to assume that "randomocracy" is a ridiculous idea. Google "sortition." it is difficult to buy outcomes in sortition. Post Citizens United I wouldn't bet against it performing better.

Sortition is (perhaps) fine for things like Congress. For running, say, the FDA? No, I want people who actually know medicine and biology there. For running the Pentagon? I want people with actual military experience there. For running the State Department? I want people who actually know diplomacy and international relations.

Re: Gifted children are special needs children

#88

Post by encoderer »

Gabriel54 wrote: post #28
ProllyInfamous wrote: post #13

Greetings fellow travelers [0]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twice_exceptional ---- In response to OP's link, my suggestion to primary schools would be to scrap the G/T programs, and instead focus on reducing class-sizes. You should also remove any students from classrooms whom routinely distract from others' learning. Give those timesinks a broom, instead.

> You should also remove any students from classrooms whom routinely distract from others' learning. A good idea but not practically possible in any district, unfortunately.

You are right but this is a fairly new development, driven by activist lawsuits. It doesn’t have to be this way, these sort of changes are not irreversible.

Re: Gifted children are special needs children

#89

Post by JohnBooty »

austin-cheney wrote: post #2

This talk about high performers and low performers needing focused environments to perform gets me thinking about the scenario of putting them together. I know this is not what the article is suggesting, but the thought is still there. This reminds me of conversations between the two ends of the Dunning-Kruger spectrum. In DK low performing people tend to vastly over-estimate their capabilities because their frame of…

    This talk about high performers and low performers needing 
    focused environments to perform gets me thinking about the 
    scenario of putting them together.
Well, hold up. I think that some large school districts in major cities have magnet schools for gifted kids.

But to my knowledge in America most gifted programs are not some kind of total segregation and I don't see a lot of people arguing for that either. In my experience in US public schools the "gifted" classes were like maybe 1/4 of our total classroom time.

Likewise with developmentally-challenged kids. Most programs have an emphasis on varying levels of integration with the other kids. In some schools, the special-ed kids are in "regular" classrooms but have their own semi-dedicated assistants.

(Example: 1 teacher, 20 kids, plus 1 special-ed assistant and 3-4 special ed kids)

Re: Gifted children are special needs children

#90

Post by cardanome »

austin-cheney wrote: post #84
cardanome wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you consider yourself one of those people for those " the negative space in a conversation is just words in a different form"? Where is that take even coming from? Communication styles are very cultural. Japanese is very subtext-heavy while German is very direct. Are Japanese people more intelligent than German people? Furthermore it depends on how your brain is wired. Autistic people prefer direct communication w…

> Personally, I prefer people that are more direct. When your social intelligence is high enough you realize everybody is always direct because communication is multidimensional. Honest only occurs when the words, vocalization, and body language are all in unison. Even then honesty only matters so much if the substance of content is inaccurate or invalid. Since you brought up autism, most people attempt to mask their…

> Masking is a form of dishonesty and people who are good a communication see it as such.

Masking is autistic people adjusting their communication style so they are more acceptable to allistic people while neglecting their own needs.

For example many autistic people show emotions differently. They can default to a flatter tone of voice or show less microexpressions in the face i.e a flatter affect. (Just to be clear, it does not mean they have less emotions. Just because someone expresses emotions differently does not mean they have more or less. Again, they could be for example extremely happy but you would read them as withdrawn and disinterested.)

Much of autistic masking can be micromanaging these things. Tone of voice, face expressions, body language.

,And here comes the kicker: High-Masking autistic people are read as MORE honest and authentic by allistic people. Yes more honest no less. Because they show behavior that is you would say is more "in unison" from the point of view of an allistic person.

It is the same effect when people think they are good at spotting a liar. There are studies that show they are worse or close to random chance. Flipping a coin is as reliable as "listening to your gut".

People that think they are good at communication are the worst because they don't realize how full of shit they are. You can't know how another person feels, they can only tell you. I guess we are back to dunning kruger. Oh, the irony.

Post reply on HN