9 ms·

Why I pulled my son out of a school for 'gifted' kids

76 points by gexos 11y ago

cuckcuckspruce 11y ago
> I will never forget the day I mentioned to another mother my concern about lack of empathy and kindness among the students, and she told me: “That’s not the school’s job.” Is there nothing left that parents are meant to teach? Or is it all now the school's job? If so, why don't we go full Spartan and take the kids away from the parents right after they're born and have schools teach everything.
- janesvilleseo 11y ago
  It takes a village
- baldfat 11y ago
  > why don't we go full Spartan and take the kids away from the parents right after they're born and have schools teach everything. I feel like that was the reason we had boarding school for the rich and apprenticeships in the early modern period. Children didn't stay with you in the city at around 12 you shipped them off to be an apprentices and live with the master or you went to a boarding school or college by 12 or 13.
  - jahewson 11y ago
    The Victorians took this one step further, creating boarding schools for the middle classes to remove the children from "the noxious influence of home" (Nathaniel Woodard); an idea which had its roots in Presbyterian preechings.
- cgearhart 11y ago
  This isn't about adding to the burden of what schools teach or provide - it's about acknowledging that schools are fundamentally a place to educate _humans_ - so some things that are fundamental to the human experience ought to be considered. I don't think a generation or two raised on "your score must improve" is going to be the hallmark of social progress. I'd much rather have a population that understands empathy. So I'll meet you half way and settle for schools that don't forcibly grind out any spark of individuality, creativity, curiosity, and empathy from their students as part of the hunt for ever higher test scores.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
- JackFr 11y ago
  > I mentioned to another mother my concern about lack of empathy and kindness among the students As I read this, it does not imply she thinks it's necessarily the schools job, but rather reflects her concern that she's leaving her child for 7 hours a day to fend for himself in environment of hyper-competitive sociopaths.
- detaro 11y ago
  False dichotomy in my book. Schools/Teachers totally have an influence on how students act around each other. Parents do too. Parents wanting the school to care about it's influence doesn't mean they don't want to do anything about it.
- setpatchaddress 11y ago
  You have a group of 19-36 students at home, and the skills to teach positive group dynamics? Lucky you. "That's not the school's job" -- so no one does it. Empathy is a learned skill, and like all such skills, requires practice.
  - hugh4 11y ago
    Most people outside New York have multiple children by the time their oldest goes to school, so there's opportunities to learn these things at home by playing with your siblings. I'm guessing that only children are a lot more common in NYC than elsewhere, though, thanks to the impossibility of affording the kind of living space that people elsewhere take for granted. Perhaps the bitchiness of the kids is attributable to the high prevalence of spoiled only children?
  - cuckcuckspruce 11y ago
    >You have a group of 19-36 students at home, and the skills to teach positive group dynamics? No, but I had friends and social interaction when I was a child, and this social interaction also taught me empathy. It helped to have good, empathetic role models at home too.
- bachmeier 11y ago
  So if one of the kids walks around and wipes boogers on the other kids, the teacher should say nothing, because it's up to the parents to teach them not to do it? Yes, it is the job of the school to require empathy and kindness of students. Whether or not that is what they learn at home, the kids have to act properly in school, and it's up to the school to make sure that happens.
- Lawtonfogle 11y ago
  Or for core social ideals, which I would hope basic empathy and kindness are considered, we should teach both at school and at home.
hugh4 11y ago
Couldn't cut it, dropped out, parents wrote sour-grapes article, the system works.
- coldtea 11y ago
  Summary that misses the whole point of the article, meant to make author feel superior.
  - hugh4 11y ago
    The situation is one that you would expect to lead to sour grapes. The criticism of the school is rather nebulous. Can we at least say that sour grapes does appear to be a strong factor?
    - coldtea 11y ago
      I think the main criticism leveled at the school is its failing to take into account their kid's needs and emotions -- and while it's based on their own pain points and their kid's failing (which we could call "sour grapes"), the same approach would lea the school to fail any kid in the same situation. What I took from the article is that instead of those "gifted kids" being given extra care, the children are only given extra curriculum to cover. I'd expect both -- since kids being really bright can be very brittle, antagonistic, alienated etc, and a special school should be expected to take that into account to and help alleviate it. So, while I could subscribe to "sour grapes", my main issue with labeling it as that is that I don't agree with the moral accusation it tags along with it. As in: I think they are justified to feel "sour grapes".
savanaly 11y ago
It seems like the optimal learning environment is one where you are a) being taught at the speed and level that is at least in the ballpark of your potential. The reason this is needed is obvious: if you are being taught way beyond your capability you won't learn anything, and it's a disservice to be taught way below your capability as well. b) in the top 50% of your local group of students, for self esteem reasons and also because you'll start to feel like studying and working hard pays off if you seem to be successful in school relative to your peers. There's a real tradeoff between these two sometimes. Given two identical kids, if you send one to the school that is not up to his "gifted" potential but he is the smartest kid in his class he may well do better in the end than the one you send to a gifted school but he is obviously at the bottom of his class. The first will certainly be happier and perhaps learn the life lessons and habits that will make him super successful in high school, college and beyond. We can at least start to address a) with these gifted programs and special education for the exceptionally challenged and so on. But addressing b) is also important and the laws of statistics sort of prevent us dividing kids into groups where everyone is above average for their group. In theoretical terms I can envision some sort of frequent rotation system where you're constantly shuffled from class to class so that one week you're top of your class and another you're bottom. Perhaps that would even help illustrate to kids the extremely hard to learn lesson that judging yourself against others is fruitless and destructive.
- mordae 11y ago
  Actually, it's enough to be at approximately same level as your peers. Varying interests will balance things out. You might feel that some of your peers are stronger in math, but that biology is your thing and so on. Skill-based splitting is also a good thing for at least one subject: foreign languages. Practicing with peers on a very different level will not work out at all. And by the way, if your kid ends up being the best in the class for virtually everything, you need to move him somewhere where they will challenge him more. If you don't, then good luck later on.
- powertower 11y ago
  > being taught at the speed and level that is at least in the ballpark of your potential. There is usually 30 students to a class, and 1 teacher. So it would have to be in the ballpark of the group's potential.
baldfat 11y ago
I was a "gifted" kid AKA they took my IQ score and put me in the program. (Horrible way to figure that out). I got to go to special things on Saturdays and take harder math classes in school. I totally sucked at spelling and still do and this is a known issue with people with a "mathematical brain" AKA can't spell to save my life but read at a high school level in 3rd grade and was doing calculus in 9th grade. My son (5 years ago) was tested to be "gifted" and after looking at the program we said no. 1) They would move him to a totally different school in our district. 2) They used a different curriculum and class strategies. 3) Being an "4.0 Student" in undergrad I knew the pressure to stand out besides the perfect scores. Kids would be worse. 4) We live in a dirty poor urban school district and I figured the "gift program" was going to get cut. It did the next year and he would have been right where he was anyways. 5) He had cancer and I kind of was mad that they would tell him these were his options without talking to us first, because there were medical needs that a local school afforded us (AKA we could run to school and give him his pain meds if necessary) Gifted doesn't mean separate because the one thing that people with different brain strategies needs is the ability to figure out how to work with others. If there is no others they are bound to have trouble later on.
- Kluny 11y ago
  I hope your son beat cancer since then.
  - baldfat 11y ago
    Sadly he passed away from bone cancer (osteosarcoma) 2 years ago. PS I usually say this so I can plead with people to help fund Pediatric Cancer Research. Only 4% of US Federal Grants go to Peds Research. American Cancer Society gives less than $0.02 per dollar for Peds Cancer Research. Adult research has little to no impact for the kids. I 100% support St Baldricks and Children’s Cancer Research Fund. We finally have our first Chemo in over 20 years this year for children because of St Baldrick's funded research!
    - caseysoftware 11y ago
      I'm so sorry for your loss. I lost a daughter for wholly different reasons but the little I understand is more than I want. I've heard great things about St Baldricks and I'm glad to know that their work is doing some good. And thank you for supporting it for others.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
Someone1234 11y ago
You tell a kid they're smart: You've immediately set them up for long term failure. "Smart" is a quantifiable hard limit. The problem with smart people is that as soon as they run up against a challenge/concept/issue they cannot immediately overcome, they get frustrated, because they "should be smarter than this!" Which often results in avoidable frustration/anxiety/depression. You see this a lot. "Gifted" "smart" kids who coast through school for years, until one day they finally run up against something they cannot do and run away from it screaming. Simply because they're not "smart enough." Where is the school program that let's the bullshit pseudo concept of "smarts" fall by the wayside and instead replaces it with an atmosphere where failure IS acceptable, and that you just have to work through the hard parts? I have a kid. My wife's side is second generation "gifted." These people are absolutely obsessed with how smart they are/sound/come across, and get incredibly upset/frustrated/annoyed when they feel "dumb" (i.e. things are hard, they don't get it right away, or they make a mistake). Unfortunately when I raise the issue of "hey, focusing on an intangible level of intelligence could be damaging [here look at this child research]" I just get eye rolls, because they're so deeply into the concept of how innately intelligent they are, they cannot see a less damaging way of living one's life.
- DanBC 11y ago
  There are some English schools that have "failure" weeks. Here's one example from 2012. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-16879336 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-16879336 Other thing schools are doing is stopping children putting their hand up to answer a question. They just ask a child at random to try to answer. (In theory) wrong answers are fine, they're looking for the child to try to explain the answer they have. Praise effort, not achievement is useful and is something that parents should be doing.
  - RyanZAG 11y ago
    Got to say I've seen this practice done a lot, but never found it beneficial as a class exercise. Nobody really learns anything through this. The person being asked tends to panic and muddles through. The people in the class who don't understand try to follow and end up more confused. This can go through a few rounds with more wrong answers. Eventually the lecturer or a student will give the right answer but half the people have tuned out already or lost their train of thought. I think it's a very bad way to learn anything. The actual method is sound when used outside of a lecture in one-on-one or small groups where everyone is involved, but fails terribly with large groups.
daxfohl 11y ago
Good for the OP. I, like many here, am an old child prodigy. Starting fatherhood 2.5 years ago, I wanted "prodigy" status for my kids too. Lots of ABC's and 123's in the last two years. Yet I'm already sensing that this is the wrong direction. Kids need fun and excitement to grow. They'll all eventually learn their ABC's and far beyond. How far beyond, though, is unrelated to how early they learn their ABC's. Rather how confident and interested they are in what they're doing. That, and genetics, which no amount of training will change. This seems obvious when you let yourself step outside the education rat race for a second. And then going back to the "far beyond" ... How far beyond do we need to get? I personally got to graduate level math and did well enough. Yet I'm still mostly (and happily) writing web software that I could have done with a high-school education or less. And working for (excellent) managers that were not even close to being child prodigies. We adults are the ones with the experience to know what is important, so why do we warp this knowledge when we apply it to our kids?
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- contingencies 11y ago
  Same but 1.5 years fatherhood here. My wife and I chose earlier this year to stay in China instead of migrating to Europe or Australia/New Zealand for our daughter's early education. There seem to be a decent number of concerned parents living here and we are collectively considering starting an independent school to avoid the currently poor options (extreme creationist Christian international school, Chinese primary schools) in a few years' time. There is some interest in established alternative models (Montessori, etc.). What struck me about the article was that they broke children in to groups even within the high potential performance group, and that was dumb. Thinking back to my own gifted/talented schooling experience in Australia, that never happened... we were all exposed to exactly the same challenges and often worked to overcome them as a group, which on the face of it seems a more realistic/adult approach to learning and work.
powertower 11y ago
There is something very narcissistic about all that. Basically, among gifted students, their child's position was in the middle of the bell-curve. That is a natural thing when there are smarter kids around, that are a better scoring group then your previous one. The parents then go on to blame society and the school for not dedicating significantly more resources towards their child, at the expense of the other students. The schools are not their to raise the child, that is the parents' job.
- astazangasta 11y ago
  >The schools are not their to raise the child, that is the parents' job. If primary education isn't child rearing, nothing is. Schools are absolutely there to raise the child.
  - powertower 11y ago
    > If primary education isn't child rearing, nothing is. Schools are absolutely there to raise the child. By that logic, what exactly is the parents job then?
    - jonesb6 11y ago
      Generally whatever they end up doing between 9 and 5. Traditionally this would entail one parent working and the other staying at home, of which the one staying at home might spend an hour in the morning getting the child ready and an hour picking them up / shuttling them to extracurriculars or whatever. In the mean time it is assumed that parent would do house work or other family oriented activities like shopping, cooking, finances, etc. Hasn't this been the status quo in all societies with "modern" education? Genuinely curious.
    - jkyle 11y ago
      > By that logic, what exactly is the parents job then? Why must only one person have a duty to raise a child? For most of human history "it takes a village" was canon with regard to child rearing. On most days of the week, a school is often responsible for the welfare of a child for more hours of the day than the parent. Seven or eight hours of school, several hours of after school activities. How can you not see this activity as child rearing?
ThomPete 11y ago
A lot of the failure is actually on the parents here. It's not that hard to get your child into schools for gifted children without your child being especially gifted. Not saying it's easy but it's not really about how gifted they are. Here in NY a lot of parents push their kids and focus primarily on the skills thats needed to get into these schools without the kids having a natural urge to want to get into it. Lots of tutoring to get them to they point where they can do it. And so a lot of children have "read the book" but don't understand it so to speak. And thats where the problem start.
- antod 11y ago
  > A lot of the failure is actually on the parents here. That's the point they make in the article. Urging other parents not to fall into the same mistakes they made, and how much better things are now having corrected them.
brudgers 11y ago
Forty years ago, I was bused across Fairfax County. Apart from a few kids in the same swath of suburbs, my classmates were bused in from other parts. I keep in touch with some of them via Facebook. They were amazing kids and are for the most part amazing middle aged adults. The striking difference between my experience and that described in the article is that the educational structure of The Center was not competitive. They were just normal elementary school classrooms other than the level of the content. There are only two plausible reasons that I didn't experience the idea that some kids were dumber than others, either it didn't happen or I was the dumbest and the other kids were compassionate and kind. Five year olds don't feel pressure to get into the best kindergarden. It's some adult's bright idea to sanction eight year olds competing on spelling day in and out. Once a year for the Scripps National Spelling Bee is plenty enough if not too much. My son goes to school with children who don't get dinner if they get a B on a math test and others whose parents have picked their majors before middle school...in STEM of course. Yet I think the the most awesome of my classmates from all those years ago are an historian and a public school teacher. Ducunt volentem fata nolentem trahunt. Seneca.
- contingencies 11y ago
  For others curious, Latin Ducunt volentem fata nolentem trahunt. means "Fate leads the willing, and drags the unwilling".
morgante 11y ago
Honestly, this sounds like a terribly selfish move. The OP consciously took her son out of a bigger pond to put him into a smaller pool where he could shine again. This completely ignores the fact that probably the best way to learn is to be surrounded by people more intelligent than yourself. Speaking as someone who spent most of my childhood as "valedictorian" I would have craved a competitive peer group much sooner, despite the blow to my self-esteem which confrontation of my own fallibility created.
- panglott 11y ago
  Moving their child to an environment where they develop a healthy, positive attitude toward learning and outgrow a crippingly low self-esteem is "terribly selfish"?
  - morgante 11y ago
    > Moving their child to an environment where they develop a healthy, positive attitude toward learning and outgrow a crippingly low self-esteem is "terribly selfish"? Speaking as someone who spent years in a "normal" environment where I was consistently at the top of the curve, I don't think it's necessarily the healthiest learning position even if it benefits self-esteem. When you never have to try to beat everyone else, you don't develop a lot of essential skills and instead just have a growing ego.
- beedyg 11y ago
  > This completely ignores the fact that probably the best way to learn is to be surrounded by people more intelligent than yourself. It might feel great interacting with your intellectual peers, but being among your actual peers will train in you in the kind of interactions which will form the majority of your life.
  - morgante 11y ago
    In what way are other intelligent students your age not your "actual peers?"
- 11y ago
rm_-rf_slash 11y ago
When I was in college I dated a girl whose parents were from Hong Kong and whose father was by far the most overbearing human being I have ever met. His determination that every one of his four children be successful drove them into an insane flurry of work that has lasted for each of their 25 years - until they each had their masters degree in biomedical engineering, as he demanded. I, on the other hand, grew up in a family of academics and was able to express myself and make mistakes from time to time. Sometimes I wish I had been pushed harder as a kid, but I think I turned out all right. When I met the father he remarked at how well-spoken I was and lamented that none of his children communicated as well as I did - the kind of skill that cannot arise when your childhood and adolescence is confined to an intellectually rigid model. Creativity cannot be dictated.
progressive_dad 11y ago
My son has been attending a progressive school based on the lab school in Chicago for the past two years. Its great in all the ways and for the reasons listed in this article, but there is one major issue we've run into. Progressive schools also attract a large number of children with behavioral problems that have been forced out of all other schools. Most progressive schools are tolerant to a fault and don't have the budget or people-power to plan and prepare for these students. They need their own IEPs and in many cases a para-professional in the classroom with them but their parents are often LOATHE to cover the cost. TL;DR progressive schools can be tolerant to a fault. Your kid will get hit and screamed at and if they are more academic they will complain to you constantly that their classroom is chaos.
noamyoungerm 11y ago
Gifted people always end up turning out average. Because they aren't special. Nearly every school catering to the middle class and up has a 'gifted' program. How many kids is that? Millions per grade. Everyone who passes through that filter gets to think of themselves as a 'smart person'. In a given K-12 grade, there are 60000 students in the 99th percentile (whatever that means) per criterion. But that's not enough - parents want to make sure their kid is special. The kind that wins Nobel Prizes. We have to find some way to filter these million above-average kids into a few hundred people who truly make a difference. So maybe your next filter could be some competition. Being accepted to [0] means you are in the top 1500 at doing a hobby science project. We have a long series of K-12 filters (olympiads, languages, music, early university, chess, etc.) and each one ends up with its own few (100-10000) best. We want to set up our kid for success, but the only way we can have any sort of prediction is by putting the kid through filter after filter after filter and hoping they pass all of them. And if they pass the first three and not the fourth? Then now you have to deal with the fact that our prediction says that they will spend the rest of their life with a regular family and a regular job rather than being something spectacular. And if they pass every test they meet? Well there are 50 other people who matched the same set of tests as they did. How do we select which 49 will end up being normal adults? And what if the next Linus Torvalds ends up being someone who passed some of the filters, but not all of them? There is no predictor for success. Kids should be encouraged to try and prove themselves, but only so long as they enjoy it so much they continue to choose to pursue this during their own free time. [0] https://student.societyforscience.org/intel-isef https://student.societyforscience.org/intel-isef
- contingencies 11y ago
  We have to find some way to filter these million above-average kids into a few hundred people who truly make a difference. ... or perhaps we need to simply admit that aspects of life outside of formal education including blind luck and chance may contribute overwhelmingly to these types of transformation later in life. Success and life goals are relative, subjective, and frankly optional anyway. There is an argument to be made for the notion that parents and especially the state have no business over-defining these things for young people, particularly given the rapidly changing nature of the global social and technological landscape.
marincounty 11y ago
"As it turns out, gifted kids, defined as "high potential learners," can have heightened awareness and anxiety, according to the National Association for Gifted Children. Our son fit the bill. (He has worried about the meaning of life since he was two years old. Seriously." I was far from a gifted child. My first day of kindergarten, my mom dressed me up in a like a minature businessman, equipped with a small brief case, thermos, lunch box, and a rain coat. (Mom, I love you to pieces, and look back with loving memories. Sorry guys had to say this.) Back to kindergarten. I walked into that class room, looked at Miss Palmer. Looked at the other children running around, and made a beehive to the little wooden play house on the back of the room. I looked out of 6" X 6" window, and my body tensed up, and I didn't want to leave that playhouse. I opened my lunch case and started to drink my milk. My mother loving put ice cubes in an cleaned, recycled peanut butter jar. I drank my milk, and came out of that playhouse, with the iron fist of Miss Palmer. "Get out of there, or I'll pull you out by your arm!" I went to my seat, and hated the whole thing. I enjoyed the other kids, but the adults at that school terrified me. I'm still leary of adults, and I'm an adult. Crazy? I remember being a nervous child. My school just made my anxieties worse. My biggest fear was twice a month, the children would have to go up to a big wooden calender, and put the date place card in the right spot. When it was my turn, I knew the date, but when I was up on that counter, and everyone was looking at me--I froze, and couldn't remember anything. I would take that placard and move it around the board, like it was a Ouigi board. Even the kids would take pity on me. They would yell, "To the right. Over there. Down. Up.". After thirty one tries, I would finally complete the task. In order to help me, Miss Palmer decided I would put the date up 2-3 times a week--so I would get better. Well, I never got better. I was so terrified of public speaking, or anyone watching me do anything, I literally would ask my college professors, "Do you require any public speaking in your class?". I got through college with only one sweaty, public speach. It's possible, with a lot of planning. As a child, I had a hard time learning. I can still see the concern on my father's face when he was trying to teach me the numbers on the big black rotary phone. I had some kind of learning disability? I just couldn't learn the things the adults wanted me to learn. I just wanted to be outside playing, and running around. Even-though, I was not gifted, I do remember the worst day of my life. I was five, or six? My parents were out, and I was alone in the house. (Just for a little while. I could go to Donna's house if I needed anything.). I was jumping on my parents bed. I got tired. I layed down. At that moment, I realized my parents might die one day. I cried, and cried. I cried for hours, or at least it seemed like hours. That was the beginning of my fear of death. It went from my parents, to my own eventually demise. My parents arrived, and I never took them for granted again. I hugged them more. I grew up fearing for their safety. In Boy Scouts, I didn't want them to go to the Jamboree; afraid they might get hurt. After all, these log contraptions were put together by crazy adults, and stupid kids. Back to my learning disability. I finally overcame it in second grade. I just started to learn? I did really well up until high school. With every pore on my face, and back clogged; the only thing I really cared about was girls, sports, (actually nothing formal. Just knock down basketball games), and socializing. It wasen't until my last year I got serious about school, but it was too late. I did make up eveverything I missed in high school in two semesters at a community college, and went on to get a four year degree, and a year of graduate school. So if you have a kid who's doing terrible in school, things do get better. If you have a nervous, anxious kid, especially if that kid is the first born; I was just about to give advise, but realized there's no advice. You don't want to coddle them? You don't want to fix all their anxieties? In my case, I just got better. I became a high functioning, educated adult. I felt like I could do anything, and was pretty successful. I then had a nervous breakdown over--life? I really don't know what made me bust a gasket. I got better from the breakdown, but I'm not a good as before. I am still hanging on though, and not depressed. I just need to make more money. The breakdown had no affect on my learning abilities, or interests. I'm just not the same dude. I sometimes wonder if I would want to go back to my old self. I honestly don't know. Good luck with your kids, and hug them. Hug, or call your parents. I need to get in touch with my brother, and sister, but we had a huge falling out over a family matter. Yes, it was money, and it was ugly. I just can't forgive them yet. (Brother--if you are listening--I understand what you did. You needed the money, and you had a kid on the way. I kinda get what you did. As to my sister--you alwready had a multi million dollar shoe business. Two houses. Vacation home in the desert, with a yurt in the backyard. New cars. Health insurance. Good wine. Restaurant meals. I will never understand why you took all the money. I have thought about it over the years, and I just don't get it. You know your mother needed the money? I'm still helping out mom because she can't afford anything. And, you knew I needed the money? You took that expensive sports car, and let your oldest boy drive it around town, like it was a commuter car? I kills me on so many levels, and it will be stolen. Yea, dad was an angry man, but you didn't need to capitalize on a bad situation? Maybe, one day, I can forgive?" Sorry people--this went to therapy too quick. I know this is not the place. Won't do it again.
kamaal 11y ago
Make no mistakes this whole smart people/student/kid/employees kind of an elite club makes a mediocre person out of many people. If you are thinking this is limited to schools alone, you are wrong. What do you think happens to all those employees at Google after they are made to go through all that algorithm acrobatics. You may be listed as someone who aced all interviews, has big grades on your mark sheet. But you will go there only find your self to be another face in the crowd. Your promotions/growth/rewards will come in a trickle. No matter how good you might actually be, you are no special snowflake in a crowd like that. The net result is you will end up demotivated, if not feeling bad about yourself. Even a performance evaluation in situations like that will make you feel like crap. And it always happens that the 'low performers' in the group are always given fewer of those plum opportunities. No matter how good you individually might be, you will end up getting labelled as mediocre. And worse, you will be made to believe that you are.
simplyluke 11y ago
I've seen a lot of pushback against gifted/talented programs over the past year or two, and much of it is very valid. A gifted program starting in 6th grade is the only reason I finished school. Having teachers that knew how to teach to my personality type and learning style helped me discover a love for math, computers, and education. My district's gifted program was the single best thing that happened to my education.
DoctorBit 11y ago
So enjoying life is more important than "winning". Who knew?
elgenie 11y ago
I guess the Peter Principle extends to elementary school too. If schools are set up to underserve the bottom 1/3 to 1/2 of each class (be it via pacing or competition), it doesn't make sense to work really hard to place your kid in better-and-better schools until they're in that bottom third.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
ntrepid8 11y ago
I got to go to a "gifted school" in 6th and 7th grade. The biggest difference was that I didn't have to worry about my physical safety there. It's a lot easier to focus on spelling when you aren't worried about getting punched in the face.
lazyant 11y ago
This reads as another instance of the "curse of the gifted" that many readers here are familiar with and the standard advice is to praise effort not intelligence. The ideal condition for learning is when you are challenged and things are a bit difficult; not too easy (you get bored) and not too hard (you get discouraged).

76 points by gexos 11y ago

> I will never forget the day I mentioned to another mother my concern about lack of empathy and kindness among the students, and she told me: “That’s not the school’s job.” Is there nothing left that parents are meant to teach? Or is it all now the school's job? If so, why don't we go full Spartan and take the kids away from the parents right after they're born and have schools teach everything.

janesvilleseo 11y ago
It takes a village
baldfat 11y ago
> why don't we go full Spartan and take the kids away from the parents right after they're born and have schools teach everything. I feel like that was the reason we had boarding school for the rich and apprenticeships in the early modern period. Children didn't stay with you in the city at around 12 you shipped them off to be an apprentices and live with the master or you went to a boarding school or college by 12 or 13.
- jahewson 11y ago
  The Victorians took this one step further, creating boarding schools for the middle classes to remove the children from "the noxious influence of home" (Nathaniel Woodard); an idea which had its roots in Presbyterian preechings.
cgearhart 11y ago
This isn't about adding to the burden of what schools teach or provide - it's about acknowledging that schools are fundamentally a place to educate _humans_ - so some things that are fundamental to the human experience ought to be considered. I don't think a generation or two raised on "your score must improve" is going to be the hallmark of social progress. I'd much rather have a population that understands empathy. So I'll meet you half way and settle for schools that don't forcibly grind out any spark of individuality, creativity, curiosity, and empathy from their students as part of the hunt for ever higher test scores.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
JackFr 11y ago
> I mentioned to another mother my concern about lack of empathy and kindness among the students As I read this, it does not imply she thinks it's necessarily the schools job, but rather reflects her concern that she's leaving her child for 7 hours a day to fend for himself in environment of hyper-competitive sociopaths.
detaro 11y ago
False dichotomy in my book. Schools/Teachers totally have an influence on how students act around each other. Parents do too. Parents wanting the school to care about it's influence doesn't mean they don't want to do anything about it.
setpatchaddress 11y ago
You have a group of 19-36 students at home, and the skills to teach positive group dynamics? Lucky you. "That's not the school's job" -- so no one does it. Empathy is a learned skill, and like all such skills, requires practice.
- hugh4 11y ago
  Most people outside New York have multiple children by the time their oldest goes to school, so there's opportunities to learn these things at home by playing with your siblings. I'm guessing that only children are a lot more common in NYC than elsewhere, though, thanks to the impossibility of affording the kind of living space that people elsewhere take for granted. Perhaps the bitchiness of the kids is attributable to the high prevalence of spoiled only children?
- cuckcuckspruce 11y ago
  >You have a group of 19-36 students at home, and the skills to teach positive group dynamics? No, but I had friends and social interaction when I was a child, and this social interaction also taught me empathy. It helped to have good, empathetic role models at home too.
bachmeier 11y ago
So if one of the kids walks around and wipes boogers on the other kids, the teacher should say nothing, because it's up to the parents to teach them not to do it? Yes, it is the job of the school to require empathy and kindness of students. Whether or not that is what they learn at home, the kids have to act properly in school, and it's up to the school to make sure that happens.
Lawtonfogle 11y ago
Or for core social ideals, which I would hope basic empathy and kindness are considered, we should teach both at school and at home.

hugh4 11y ago

Couldn't cut it, dropped out, parents wrote sour-grapes article, the system works.

coldtea 11y ago
Summary that misses the whole point of the article, meant to make author feel superior.
- hugh4 11y ago
  The situation is one that you would expect to lead to sour grapes. The criticism of the school is rather nebulous. Can we at least say that sour grapes does appear to be a strong factor?
  - coldtea 11y ago
    I think the main criticism leveled at the school is its failing to take into account their kid's needs and emotions -- and while it's based on their own pain points and their kid's failing (which we could call "sour grapes"), the same approach would lea the school to fail any kid in the same situation. What I took from the article is that instead of those "gifted kids" being given extra care, the children are only given extra curriculum to cover. I'd expect both -- since kids being really bright can be very brittle, antagonistic, alienated etc, and a special school should be expected to take that into account to and help alleviate it. So, while I could subscribe to "sour grapes", my main issue with labeling it as that is that I don't agree with the moral accusation it tags along with it. As in: I think they are justified to feel "sour grapes".

savanaly 11y ago

It seems like the optimal learning environment is one where you are a) being taught at the speed and level that is at least in the ballpark of your potential. The reason this is needed is obvious: if you are being taught way beyond your capability you won't learn anything, and it's a disservice to be taught way below your capability as well. b) in the top 50% of your local group of students, for self esteem reasons and also because you'll start to feel like studying and working hard pays off if you seem to be successful in school relative to your peers. There's a real tradeoff between these two sometimes. Given two identical kids, if you send one to the school that is not up to his "gifted" potential but he is the smartest kid in his class he may well do better in the end than the one you send to a gifted school but he is obviously at the bottom of his class. The first will certainly be happier and perhaps learn the life lessons and habits that will make him super successful in high school, college and beyond. We can at least start to address a) with these gifted programs and special education for the exceptionally challenged and so on. But addressing b) is also important and the laws of statistics sort of prevent us dividing kids into groups where everyone is above average for their group. In theoretical terms I can envision some sort of frequent rotation system where you're constantly shuffled from class to class so that one week you're top of your class and another you're bottom. Perhaps that would even help illustrate to kids the extremely hard to learn lesson that judging yourself against others is fruitless and destructive.

mordae 11y ago
Actually, it's enough to be at approximately same level as your peers. Varying interests will balance things out. You might feel that some of your peers are stronger in math, but that biology is your thing and so on. Skill-based splitting is also a good thing for at least one subject: foreign languages. Practicing with peers on a very different level will not work out at all. And by the way, if your kid ends up being the best in the class for virtually everything, you need to move him somewhere where they will challenge him more. If you don't, then good luck later on.
powertower 11y ago
> being taught at the speed and level that is at least in the ballpark of your potential. There is usually 30 students to a class, and 1 teacher. So it would have to be in the ballpark of the group's potential.

baldfat 11y ago

I was a "gifted" kid AKA they took my IQ score and put me in the program. (Horrible way to figure that out). I got to go to special things on Saturdays and take harder math classes in school. I totally sucked at spelling and still do and this is a known issue with people with a "mathematical brain" AKA can't spell to save my life but read at a high school level in 3rd grade and was doing calculus in 9th grade. My son (5 years ago) was tested to be "gifted" and after looking at the program we said no. 1) They would move him to a totally different school in our district. 2) They used a different curriculum and class strategies. 3) Being an "4.0 Student" in undergrad I knew the pressure to stand out besides the perfect scores. Kids would be worse. 4) We live in a dirty poor urban school district and I figured the "gift program" was going to get cut. It did the next year and he would have been right where he was anyways. 5) He had cancer and I kind of was mad that they would tell him these were his options without talking to us first, because there were medical needs that a local school afforded us (AKA we could run to school and give him his pain meds if necessary) Gifted doesn't mean separate because the one thing that people with different brain strategies needs is the ability to figure out how to work with others. If there is no others they are bound to have trouble later on.

Kluny 11y ago
I hope your son beat cancer since then.
- baldfat 11y ago
  Sadly he passed away from bone cancer (osteosarcoma) 2 years ago. PS I usually say this so I can plead with people to help fund Pediatric Cancer Research. Only 4% of US Federal Grants go to Peds Research. American Cancer Society gives less than $0.02 per dollar for Peds Cancer Research. Adult research has little to no impact for the kids. I 100% support St Baldricks and Children’s Cancer Research Fund. We finally have our first Chemo in over 20 years this year for children because of St Baldrick's funded research!
  - caseysoftware 11y ago
    I'm so sorry for your loss. I lost a daughter for wholly different reasons but the little I understand is more than I want. I've heard great things about St Baldricks and I'm glad to know that their work is doing some good. And thank you for supporting it for others.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

Someone1234 11y ago

You tell a kid they're smart: You've immediately set them up for long term failure. "Smart" is a quantifiable hard limit. The problem with smart people is that as soon as they run up against a challenge/concept/issue they cannot immediately overcome, they get frustrated, because they "should be smarter than this!" Which often results in avoidable frustration/anxiety/depression. You see this a lot. "Gifted" "smart" kids who coast through school for years, until one day they finally run up against something they cannot do and run away from it screaming. Simply because they're not "smart enough." Where is the school program that let's the bullshit pseudo concept of "smarts" fall by the wayside and instead replaces it with an atmosphere where failure IS acceptable, and that you just have to work through the hard parts? I have a kid. My wife's side is second generation "gifted." These people are absolutely obsessed with how smart they are/sound/come across, and get incredibly upset/frustrated/annoyed when they feel "dumb" (i.e. things are hard, they don't get it right away, or they make a mistake). Unfortunately when I raise the issue of "hey, focusing on an intangible level of intelligence could be damaging [here look at this child research]" I just get eye rolls, because they're so deeply into the concept of how innately intelligent they are, they cannot see a less damaging way of living one's life.

DanBC 11y ago
There are some English schools that have "failure" weeks. Here's one example from 2012. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-16879336 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-16879336 Other thing schools are doing is stopping children putting their hand up to answer a question. They just ask a child at random to try to answer. (In theory) wrong answers are fine, they're looking for the child to try to explain the answer they have. Praise effort, not achievement is useful and is something that parents should be doing.
- RyanZAG 11y ago
  Got to say I've seen this practice done a lot, but never found it beneficial as a class exercise. Nobody really learns anything through this. The person being asked tends to panic and muddles through. The people in the class who don't understand try to follow and end up more confused. This can go through a few rounds with more wrong answers. Eventually the lecturer or a student will give the right answer but half the people have tuned out already or lost their train of thought. I think it's a very bad way to learn anything. The actual method is sound when used outside of a lecture in one-on-one or small groups where everyone is involved, but fails terribly with large groups.

daxfohl 11y ago

Good for the OP. I, like many here, am an old child prodigy. Starting fatherhood 2.5 years ago, I wanted "prodigy" status for my kids too. Lots of ABC's and 123's in the last two years. Yet I'm already sensing that this is the wrong direction. Kids need fun and excitement to grow. They'll all eventually learn their ABC's and far beyond. How far beyond, though, is unrelated to how early they learn their ABC's. Rather how confident and interested they are in what they're doing. That, and genetics, which no amount of training will change. This seems obvious when you let yourself step outside the education rat race for a second. And then going back to the "far beyond" ... How far beyond do we need to get? I personally got to graduate level math and did well enough. Yet I'm still mostly (and happily) writing web software that I could have done with a high-school education or less. And working for (excellent) managers that were not even close to being child prodigies. We adults are the ones with the experience to know what is important, so why do we warp this knowledge when we apply it to our kids?

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
contingencies 11y ago
Same but 1.5 years fatherhood here. My wife and I chose earlier this year to stay in China instead of migrating to Europe or Australia/New Zealand for our daughter's early education. There seem to be a decent number of concerned parents living here and we are collectively considering starting an independent school to avoid the currently poor options (extreme creationist Christian international school, Chinese primary schools) in a few years' time. There is some interest in established alternative models (Montessori, etc.). What struck me about the article was that they broke children in to groups even within the high potential performance group, and that was dumb. Thinking back to my own gifted/talented schooling experience in Australia, that never happened... we were all exposed to exactly the same challenges and often worked to overcome them as a group, which on the face of it seems a more realistic/adult approach to learning and work.

powertower 11y ago

There is something very narcissistic about all that. Basically, among gifted students, their child's position was in the middle of the bell-curve. That is a natural thing when there are smarter kids around, that are a better scoring group then your previous one. The parents then go on to blame society and the school for not dedicating significantly more resources towards their child, at the expense of the other students. The schools are not their to raise the child, that is the parents' job.

astazangasta 11y ago
>The schools are not their to raise the child, that is the parents' job. If primary education isn't child rearing, nothing is. Schools are absolutely there to raise the child.
- powertower 11y ago
  > If primary education isn't child rearing, nothing is. Schools are absolutely there to raise the child. By that logic, what exactly is the parents job then?
  - jonesb6 11y ago
    Generally whatever they end up doing between 9 and 5. Traditionally this would entail one parent working and the other staying at home, of which the one staying at home might spend an hour in the morning getting the child ready and an hour picking them up / shuttling them to extracurriculars or whatever. In the mean time it is assumed that parent would do house work or other family oriented activities like shopping, cooking, finances, etc. Hasn't this been the status quo in all societies with "modern" education? Genuinely curious.
  - jkyle 11y ago
    > By that logic, what exactly is the parents job then? Why must only one person have a duty to raise a child? For most of human history "it takes a village" was canon with regard to child rearing. On most days of the week, a school is often responsible for the welfare of a child for more hours of the day than the parent. Seven or eight hours of school, several hours of after school activities. How can you not see this activity as child rearing?

ThomPete 11y ago

A lot of the failure is actually on the parents here. It's not that hard to get your child into schools for gifted children without your child being especially gifted. Not saying it's easy but it's not really about how gifted they are. Here in NY a lot of parents push their kids and focus primarily on the skills thats needed to get into these schools without the kids having a natural urge to want to get into it. Lots of tutoring to get them to they point where they can do it. And so a lot of children have "read the book" but don't understand it so to speak. And thats where the problem start.

antod 11y ago
> A lot of the failure is actually on the parents here. That's the point they make in the article. Urging other parents not to fall into the same mistakes they made, and how much better things are now having corrected them.

brudgers 11y ago

Forty years ago, I was bused across Fairfax County. Apart from a few kids in the same swath of suburbs, my classmates were bused in from other parts. I keep in touch with some of them via Facebook. They were amazing kids and are for the most part amazing middle aged adults. The striking difference between my experience and that described in the article is that the educational structure of The Center was not competitive. They were just normal elementary school classrooms other than the level of the content. There are only two plausible reasons that I didn't experience the idea that some kids were dumber than others, either it didn't happen or I was the dumbest and the other kids were compassionate and kind. Five year olds don't feel pressure to get into the best kindergarden. It's some adult's bright idea to sanction eight year olds competing on spelling day in and out. Once a year for the Scripps National Spelling Bee is plenty enough if not too much. My son goes to school with children who don't get dinner if they get a B on a math test and others whose parents have picked their majors before middle school...in STEM of course. Yet I think the the most awesome of my classmates from all those years ago are an historian and a public school teacher. Ducunt volentem fata nolentem trahunt. Seneca.

contingencies 11y ago
For others curious, Latin Ducunt volentem fata nolentem trahunt. means "Fate leads the willing, and drags the unwilling".

morgante 11y ago

Honestly, this sounds like a terribly selfish move. The OP consciously took her son out of a bigger pond to put him into a smaller pool where he could shine again. This completely ignores the fact that probably the best way to learn is to be surrounded by people more intelligent than yourself. Speaking as someone who spent most of my childhood as "valedictorian" I would have craved a competitive peer group much sooner, despite the blow to my self-esteem which confrontation of my own fallibility created.

panglott 11y ago
Moving their child to an environment where they develop a healthy, positive attitude toward learning and outgrow a crippingly low self-esteem is "terribly selfish"?
- morgante 11y ago
  > Moving their child to an environment where they develop a healthy, positive attitude toward learning and outgrow a crippingly low self-esteem is "terribly selfish"? Speaking as someone who spent years in a "normal" environment where I was consistently at the top of the curve, I don't think it's necessarily the healthiest learning position even if it benefits self-esteem. When you never have to try to beat everyone else, you don't develop a lot of essential skills and instead just have a growing ego.
beedyg 11y ago
> This completely ignores the fact that probably the best way to learn is to be surrounded by people more intelligent than yourself. It might feel great interacting with your intellectual peers, but being among your actual peers will train in you in the kind of interactions which will form the majority of your life.
- morgante 11y ago
  In what way are other intelligent students your age not your "actual peers?"
11y ago

rm_-rf_slash 11y ago

When I was in college I dated a girl whose parents were from Hong Kong and whose father was by far the most overbearing human being I have ever met. His determination that every one of his four children be successful drove them into an insane flurry of work that has lasted for each of their 25 years - until they each had their masters degree in biomedical engineering, as he demanded. I, on the other hand, grew up in a family of academics and was able to express myself and make mistakes from time to time. Sometimes I wish I had been pushed harder as a kid, but I think I turned out all right. When I met the father he remarked at how well-spoken I was and lamented that none of his children communicated as well as I did - the kind of skill that cannot arise when your childhood and adolescence is confined to an intellectually rigid model. Creativity cannot be dictated.

progressive_dad 11y ago

My son has been attending a progressive school based on the lab school in Chicago for the past two years. Its great in all the ways and for the reasons listed in this article, but there is one major issue we've run into. Progressive schools also attract a large number of children with behavioral problems that have been forced out of all other schools. Most progressive schools are tolerant to a fault and don't have the budget or people-power to plan and prepare for these students. They need their own IEPs and in many cases a para-professional in the classroom with them but their parents are often LOATHE to cover the cost. TL;DR progressive schools can be tolerant to a fault. Your kid will get hit and screamed at and if they are more academic they will complain to you constantly that their classroom is chaos.

noamyoungerm 11y ago

Gifted people always end up turning out average. Because they aren't special. Nearly every school catering to the middle class and up has a 'gifted' program. How many kids is that? Millions per grade. Everyone who passes through that filter gets to think of themselves as a 'smart person'. In a given K-12 grade, there are 60000 students in the 99th percentile (whatever that means) per criterion. But that's not enough - parents want to make sure their kid is special. The kind that wins Nobel Prizes. We have to find some way to filter these million above-average kids into a few hundred people who truly make a difference. So maybe your next filter could be some competition. Being accepted to [0] means you are in the top 1500 at doing a hobby science project. We have a long series of K-12 filters (olympiads, languages, music, early university, chess, etc.) and each one ends up with its own few (100-10000) best. We want to set up our kid for success, but the only way we can have any sort of prediction is by putting the kid through filter after filter after filter and hoping they pass all of them. And if they pass the first three and not the fourth? Then now you have to deal with the fact that our prediction says that they will spend the rest of their life with a regular family and a regular job rather than being something spectacular. And if they pass every test they meet? Well there are 50 other people who matched the same set of tests as they did. How do we select which 49 will end up being normal adults? And what if the next Linus Torvalds ends up being someone who passed some of the filters, but not all of them? There is no predictor for success. Kids should be encouraged to try and prove themselves, but only so long as they enjoy it so much they continue to choose to pursue this during their own free time. [0] https://student.societyforscience.org/intel-isef https://student.societyforscience.org/intel-isef

contingencies 11y ago
We have to find some way to filter these million above-average kids into a few hundred people who truly make a difference. ... or perhaps we need to simply admit that aspects of life outside of formal education including blind luck and chance may contribute overwhelmingly to these types of transformation later in life. Success and life goals are relative, subjective, and frankly optional anyway. There is an argument to be made for the notion that parents and especially the state have no business over-defining these things for young people, particularly given the rapidly changing nature of the global social and technological landscape.

marincounty 11y ago

"As it turns out, gifted kids, defined as "high potential learners," can have heightened awareness and anxiety, according to the National Association for Gifted Children. Our son fit the bill. (He has worried about the meaning of life since he was two years old. Seriously." I was far from a gifted child. My first day of kindergarten, my mom dressed me up in a like a minature businessman, equipped with a small brief case, thermos, lunch box, and a rain coat. (Mom, I love you to pieces, and look back with loving memories. Sorry guys had to say this.) Back to kindergarten. I walked into that class room, looked at Miss Palmer. Looked at the other children running around, and made a beehive to the little wooden play house on the back of the room. I looked out of 6" X 6" window, and my body tensed up, and I didn't want to leave that playhouse. I opened my lunch case and started to drink my milk. My mother loving put ice cubes in an cleaned, recycled peanut butter jar. I drank my milk, and came out of that playhouse, with the iron fist of Miss Palmer. "Get out of there, or I'll pull you out by your arm!" I went to my seat, and hated the whole thing. I enjoyed the other kids, but the adults at that school terrified me. I'm still leary of adults, and I'm an adult. Crazy? I remember being a nervous child. My school just made my anxieties worse. My biggest fear was twice a month, the children would have to go up to a big wooden calender, and put the date place card in the right spot. When it was my turn, I knew the date, but when I was up on that counter, and everyone was looking at me--I froze, and couldn't remember anything. I would take that placard and move it around the board, like it was a Ouigi board. Even the kids would take pity on me. They would yell, "To the right. Over there. Down. Up.". After thirty one tries, I would finally complete the task. In order to help me, Miss Palmer decided I would put the date up 2-3 times a week--so I would get better. Well, I never got better. I was so terrified of public speaking, or anyone watching me do anything, I literally would ask my college professors, "Do you require any public speaking in your class?". I got through college with only one sweaty, public speach. It's possible, with a lot of planning. As a child, I had a hard time learning. I can still see the concern on my father's face when he was trying to teach me the numbers on the big black rotary phone. I had some kind of learning disability? I just couldn't learn the things the adults wanted me to learn. I just wanted to be outside playing, and running around. Even-though, I was not gifted, I do remember the worst day of my life. I was five, or six? My parents were out, and I was alone in the house. (Just for a little while. I could go to Donna's house if I needed anything.). I was jumping on my parents bed. I got tired. I layed down. At that moment, I realized my parents might die one day. I cried, and cried. I cried for hours, or at least it seemed like hours. That was the beginning of my fear of death. It went from my parents, to my own eventually demise. My parents arrived, and I never took them for granted again. I hugged them more. I grew up fearing for their safety. In Boy Scouts, I didn't want them to go to the Jamboree; afraid they might get hurt. After all, these log contraptions were put together by crazy adults, and stupid kids. Back to my learning disability. I finally overcame it in second grade. I just started to learn? I did really well up until high school. With every pore on my face, and back clogged; the only thing I really cared about was girls, sports, (actually nothing formal. Just knock down basketball games), and socializing. It wasen't until my last year I got serious about school, but it was too late. I did make up eveverything I missed in high school in two semesters at a community college, and went on to get a four year degree, and a year of graduate school. So if you have a kid who's doing terrible in school, things do get better. If you have a nervous, anxious kid, especially if that kid is the first born; I was just about to give advise, but realized there's no advice. You don't want to coddle them? You don't want to fix all their anxieties? In my case, I just got better. I became a high functioning, educated adult. I felt like I could do anything, and was pretty successful. I then had a nervous breakdown over--life? I really don't know what made me bust a gasket. I got better from the breakdown, but I'm not a good as before. I am still hanging on though, and not depressed. I just need to make more money. The breakdown had no affect on my learning abilities, or interests. I'm just not the same dude. I sometimes wonder if I would want to go back to my old self. I honestly don't know. Good luck with your kids, and hug them. Hug, or call your parents. I need to get in touch with my brother, and sister, but we had a huge falling out over a family matter. Yes, it was money, and it was ugly. I just can't forgive them yet. (Brother--if you are listening--I understand what you did. You needed the money, and you had a kid on the way. I kinda get what you did. As to my sister--you alwready had a multi million dollar shoe business. Two houses. Vacation home in the desert, with a yurt in the backyard. New cars. Health insurance. Good wine. Restaurant meals. I will never understand why you took all the money. I have thought about it over the years, and I just don't get it. You know your mother needed the money? I'm still helping out mom because she can't afford anything. And, you knew I needed the money? You took that expensive sports car, and let your oldest boy drive it around town, like it was a commuter car? I kills me on so many levels, and it will be stolen. Yea, dad was an angry man, but you didn't need to capitalize on a bad situation? Maybe, one day, I can forgive?" Sorry people--this went to therapy too quick. I know this is not the place. Won't do it again.

kamaal 11y ago

Make no mistakes this whole smart people/student/kid/employees kind of an elite club makes a mediocre person out of many people. If you are thinking this is limited to schools alone, you are wrong. What do you think happens to all those employees at Google after they are made to go through all that algorithm acrobatics. You may be listed as someone who aced all interviews, has big grades on your mark sheet. But you will go there only find your self to be another face in the crowd. Your promotions/growth/rewards will come in a trickle. No matter how good you might actually be, you are no special snowflake in a crowd like that. The net result is you will end up demotivated, if not feeling bad about yourself. Even a performance evaluation in situations like that will make you feel like crap. And it always happens that the 'low performers' in the group are always given fewer of those plum opportunities. No matter how good you individually might be, you will end up getting labelled as mediocre. And worse, you will be made to believe that you are.

simplyluke 11y ago

I've seen a lot of pushback against gifted/talented programs over the past year or two, and much of it is very valid. A gifted program starting in 6th grade is the only reason I finished school. Having teachers that knew how to teach to my personality type and learning style helped me discover a love for math, computers, and education. My district's gifted program was the single best thing that happened to my education.

DoctorBit 11y ago

So enjoying life is more important than "winning". Who knew?

elgenie 11y ago

I guess the Peter Principle extends to elementary school too. If schools are set up to underserve the bottom 1/3 to 1/2 of each class (be it via pacing or competition), it doesn't make sense to work really hard to place your kid in better-and-better schools until they're in that bottom third.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

ntrepid8 11y ago

I got to go to a "gifted school" in 6th and 7th grade. The biggest difference was that I didn't have to worry about my physical safety there. It's a lot easier to focus on spelling when you aren't worried about getting punched in the face.

lazyant 11y ago

This reads as another instance of the "curse of the gifted" that many readers here are familiar with and the standard advice is to praise effort not intelligence. The ideal condition for learning is when you are challenged and things are a bit difficult; not too easy (you get bored) and not too hard (you get discouraged).