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

101–110 of 145 posts

Re: Gifted children are special needs children

#101

Post by bitshiftfaced »

kragen wrote: post #92
bitshiftfaced wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Some kids have more difficulty with it than others, and in particular it interferes a great deal more with reading a book than with running around screaming.

Which is why some countries like the US have encoded into law IEP and 504 plans for children with (among other things) sensory needs, regardless of giftedness status.

Re: Gifted children are special needs children

#102

Post by yesfitz »

munchler wrote: post #47
bko wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know where this extreme egalitarian belief that it's bad to let smart people excel is coming from. How is it not healthy? Even Marxism, an extremely egalitarian system of belief has a phrase "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." People focus on the second part of the phrase, but the first part explicitly states we should strive to work up our individual ability and potential. D…

The question isn't whether "it's bad to let smart people excel". Obviously, we never want to actively stop anyone from exceling. The actual question is whether smart people should receive a disproportionate amount of a finite resource, like education. This imbalance creates a potential runaway effect in which one group grows ever more successful at the expense of other groups.

Can you expand on how gifted program students receive a disproportionate amount of education?

Re: Gifted children are special needs children

#103

Post by Y_Y »

JohnBooty wrote: post #95
Y_Y wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For what it's worth, I think my experience was similar to yours. That's why I'm drilling down on the definition of "need". I agree qwth what you say, my only point was that gifted students have a different, less urgent, kind of "need". Hence, as a mayter of institutional dynamics, we have the inadequate systems we have (for the gifted at least).

That's why I'm drilling down on the definition of "need" I like this train of thought. It leads to another great question or drilldown. If we're going to talk about needs we need to talk about it in relation to a goal. Is the goal... 1. To raise all childrens' education to some sort of minimally acceptable bar? (like the equivalent of a GED here in the USA) 2. To get as many kids as possible as close to their individ…

Strictly agree with your question.. i think it's similar to, and at the same level of importance as, the classic trilemma of criminal justice: prevention, rehabilitation, or revenge.

Re: Gifted children are special needs children

#104

Post by slowmovintarget »

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…

Also in Massachusetts...

We found that all the "best in the nation" schools here, with the possible exception of Boston Latin, aren't really all that great. The reason they're measured "best" is because all the parents hire tutors and private instructors on top of the regular school day. Russian math, science tutors, English, music instruction... you name it.

Systemically, this means the educators don't know how to teach. There are standout teachers, but by and large, the expectation from the "good" schools is that the kids are getting all the actual education outside the school system already. We found this to be true in Lexington, in Wellesley, pretty much all of the top schools in Mass. Boston Latin even has this problem, on top of the additional requirement to live within the city limits of Boston proper and hope you fit into one of their quota slots and your kid gets accepted.

Private schools are a little different, but their costs, and the small percentage of acceptance even if you bear the cost, will take your breath away.

All of this, and a host of other unpleasant features of public education, are why we chose homeschooling. It's been a huge sacrifice, but worth it.

Re: Gifted children are special needs children

#105

Post by munchler »

yesfitz wrote: post #102
munchler wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The question isn't whether "it's bad to let smart people excel". Obviously, we never want to actively stop anyone from exceling. The actual question is whether smart people should receive a disproportionate amount of a finite resource, like education. This imbalance creates a potential runaway effect in which one group grows ever more successful at the expense of other groups.

Can you expand on how gifted program students receive a disproportionate amount of education?

G&T programs are potentially disproportionate in terms of attention from the best teachers/classes, access to high-end resources, pipelines to the best colleges, etc. If those were available to everyone who could benefit from them, then there wouldn't be such competition for them.

Source: Am a parent of a G&T student and I see the intensity with which parents push their kids into the program.

Re: Gifted children are special needs children

#106

Post by em-bee »

JohnBooty wrote: post #85
teiferer wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

if it didn't teach reading it wasn't montessori.

montessori teaches reading, writing and math far beyond what an average kindergarten does.

Re: Gifted children are special needs children

#107

Post by em-bee »

teiferer wrote: post #97
JohnBooty wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

There wasn't much directed learning. We played all day. Indoors building stuff, outdoors in the woods. All that academic material with reading and writing and maths and all that, that's what primary school was for. Which started at age 6/7. I'd say let kids be kids and have them explore the world through curiosity, not through a planned curiculum from age 3.

montessori is very directed but the key difference is that each kid is learning on their own at their pace. which means the kids learning is only driven by their curiosity. montessori materials are also designed to make learning interesting. kids can choose what they want to play with and after introduction to a new lesson are allowed to explore the material in their own way, which makes it very playful. teachers observe the kids and suggest new lessons to each kid when they feel a kid is ready.

Re: Gifted children are special needs children

#108

Post by em-bee »

tokai wrote: post #17
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.

There really shouldn't be any academic component. It doesn't help any outcomes.

montessori is almost pure academic, and it makes a massive difference. but the key is not what they learn/teach, but how.

Re: Gifted children are special needs children

#109

Post by M95D »

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…

>> 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).

Yes you can. Group students by entrance exam results. Discussed here:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45070793

Re: Gifted children are special needs children

#110

Post by lostmsu »

bccdee wrote: post #76

The primary reason I was admitted into my local gifted program was because my parents and teachers pushed to get me into it. At age 6, I scored a high enough IQ to get in, but my family had to pay to have the test administered privately. The makeup of my cohort was mostly white and Asian, but they were also distinctly middle-to-upper-middle-class, with a high density of stay-at-home mothers (like my own) who were act…

Your anecdote does not support your own conclusion, because it is very possible that affluence was obtained by parent's merit, and merit is highly hereditable.
Post reply on HN