5 ms·

Magnet schools can fix this issue. If you have 10 high schools, running 1 as a gifted program and the other 9 as before should not cost significantly more. Of

Magnet schools can fix this issue. If you have 10 high schools, running 1 as a gifted program and the other 9 as before should not cost significantly more. Of course, people complain about negative effects on the remaining schools [0] on the basis that removing gifted students hurts the remaining ones. This seems like a strange concern to me -- why should gifted students be responsible for pulling up their peers? [0] http://kristof.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/10/magnet-schools-more-harm-than-good/ http://kristof.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/10/magnet-schools-m...

Lawtonfogle 11y ago
>why should gifted students be responsible for pulling up their peers? Some variant of academic socialism? Could it be packaged with social socialism for the gifted kids who lack in other social areas?
AlexEatsKittens 11y ago
It's an interesting concept. I agree with you completely, but we're basically saying that the gifted have no responsibility to the average and below average. While in this specific situation, it seems obvious that a child shouldn't have to receive a lower quality education in order the help those with less ability, that concept has some Randian implications if you extrapolate it to society in general.
- peterfirefly 11y ago
  They are going to spend the rest of their lives helping those with less ability -- who do they have to be handicapped in school so as to be less capable of doing so? And have a miserable time of it to boot?
dublinben 11y ago
The gifted students are already segregated into their upper level classes. They have little to no contact with average students outside of the cafeteria or gym class.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > The gifted students are already segregated into their upper level classes. Unless you have a special gifted program, that's generally only true in high school and maybe middle school, and (even then), is subject to the availability of distinct "upper level" classes, which even in high schools may be limited in districts where the effort is focused on maintaining the middle and bringing up the bottom.
- danielweber 11y ago
  Some people view the children in public schools as resources to be applied to their own ends.
rayiner 11y ago
The point in that article is a bit more subtle than that: "What should have been done was to pull out the bottom ten percent." The author's thesis is that the real benefit, to average and gifted kids alike, is not having to be in the same class as the bottom rung of kids. I find that thesis at least plausible. I went to regular public school for K-8, then a magnet school for 9-12. It's really the bottom 10%, usually kids with behavioral or social problems, that makes the experience worse for everyone. At the same time, I'm not sure my magnet school experience would've been appreciably worse with a bunch of average kids in the class. Maybe the teachers would have had to teach the material more slowly and we would've covered less of it, but the fact is that very little you learn in K-12 matters anyway.
- nitrogen 11y ago
  the fact is that very little you learn in K-12 matters anyway And herein lies the problem with K-12 for gifted students. Why should kids be learning things that don't matter when they are capable of more? (Note: I disagree with the claim that little in K12 matters; every bit of knowledge lays the foundation for the next layer of abstraction. E.g. counting->arithmetic->algebra->calculus/statistics, or alphabet->spelling->vocabulary->grammar->reading->writing->essay writing/research.)
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > but the fact is that very little you learn in K-12 matters anyway. I disagree. Most of what is learned in K-12 is foundational for things learned later (literacy, numeracy, and basic social skills at the earlier grades, more developed hard and soft analytical and communications skills in later grades.) Even to the extent that the nominal subject matter may not be particularly generally useful later, it tends to serve as a focus for more generally applicable skills.
  - rayiner 11y ago
    My point is that covering more or less of the nominal subject matter doesn't particularly matter because the nominal subject matter isn't particularly useful itself.
s73v3r 11y ago
What if there is only one high school in the area? Also, the argument isn't that gifted students are responsible for pulling up peers. The argument is that by being around people like that, it benefits others. Much like integrating schools and having different income levels in the same school helps others.

Lawtonfogle 11y ago

>why should gifted students be responsible for pulling up their peers? Some variant of academic socialism? Could it be packaged with social socialism for the gifted kids who lack in other social areas?

AlexEatsKittens 11y ago

It's an interesting concept. I agree with you completely, but we're basically saying that the gifted have no responsibility to the average and below average. While in this specific situation, it seems obvious that a child shouldn't have to receive a lower quality education in order the help those with less ability, that concept has some Randian implications if you extrapolate it to society in general.

peterfirefly 11y ago
They are going to spend the rest of their lives helping those with less ability -- who do they have to be handicapped in school so as to be less capable of doing so? And have a miserable time of it to boot?

dublinben 11y ago

The gifted students are already segregated into their upper level classes. They have little to no contact with average students outside of the cafeteria or gym class.

dragonwriter 11y ago
> The gifted students are already segregated into their upper level classes. Unless you have a special gifted program, that's generally only true in high school and maybe middle school, and (even then), is subject to the availability of distinct "upper level" classes, which even in high schools may be limited in districts where the effort is focused on maintaining the middle and bringing up the bottom.
danielweber 11y ago
Some people view the children in public schools as resources to be applied to their own ends.

rayiner 11y ago

The point in that article is a bit more subtle than that: "What should have been done was to pull out the bottom ten percent." The author's thesis is that the real benefit, to average and gifted kids alike, is not having to be in the same class as the bottom rung of kids. I find that thesis at least plausible. I went to regular public school for K-8, then a magnet school for 9-12. It's really the bottom 10%, usually kids with behavioral or social problems, that makes the experience worse for everyone. At the same time, I'm not sure my magnet school experience would've been appreciably worse with a bunch of average kids in the class. Maybe the teachers would have had to teach the material more slowly and we would've covered less of it, but the fact is that very little you learn in K-12 matters anyway.

nitrogen 11y ago
the fact is that very little you learn in K-12 matters anyway And herein lies the problem with K-12 for gifted students. Why should kids be learning things that don't matter when they are capable of more? (Note: I disagree with the claim that little in K12 matters; every bit of knowledge lays the foundation for the next layer of abstraction. E.g. counting->arithmetic->algebra->calculus/statistics, or alphabet->spelling->vocabulary->grammar->reading->writing->essay writing/research.)
dragonwriter 11y ago
> but the fact is that very little you learn in K-12 matters anyway. I disagree. Most of what is learned in K-12 is foundational for things learned later (literacy, numeracy, and basic social skills at the earlier grades, more developed hard and soft analytical and communications skills in later grades.) Even to the extent that the nominal subject matter may not be particularly generally useful later, it tends to serve as a focus for more generally applicable skills.
- rayiner 11y ago
  My point is that covering more or less of the nominal subject matter doesn't particularly matter because the nominal subject matter isn't particularly useful itself.

s73v3r 11y ago

What if there is only one high school in the area? Also, the argument isn't that gifted students are responsible for pulling up peers. The argument is that by being around people like that, it benefits others. Much like integrating schools and having different income levels in the same school helps others.