4 ms·

Here in the U.S., very few public high schools have single-track education, at least not for "core" subjects such as English, math, and science. There are typi

by jawns 10y ago

Here in the U.S., very few public high schools have single-track education, at least not for "core" subjects such as English, math, and science. There are typically remedial, standard, honors, and AP classes for these subjects. And I would think that if you're OK with multi-track education, it would seem like having a separate school for gifted students is just an extension of that. That said, in my own experience, although there were down sides to having some single-track subjects (e.g. physical education), one benefit of attending a school with children of all ability levels was that you were exposed to children from all walks of life. I would imagine that a school for gifted students would have skewed socioeconomic demographics compared to a school for students of all ability levels, and in many places, that might also mean less racial diversity. At my public high school, we had a program where students at standard-level or above would assist special-education students. That type of opportunity would probably be missing from a school for only gifted students. You would be less likely to come into contact with (and befriend) people with intellectual disabilities, or even people with average intelligence. Edit: One other point. Academic giftedness is often thought of as one monolithic thing, but I know several people whose giftedness varies wildly by subject. If you attend a school for gifted students, would there be an expectation that you would be gifted in all subject areas? Would it be more difficult for you to get help in the subjects where you struggle?

jschwartzi 10y ago
Mostly what I learned in high school was how to talk to kids from blue-collar families. Don't use multi-syllabic words, and talk only in concrete terms. Avoid use of abstraction and don't pontificate about anything.
- dvcc 10y ago
  Wow, as a member of a blue-collar family this is downright insulting. The gross generalization of an entire social class is anything but healthy. Funny enough, I just finished reading the article and comments from the story on what it's like to be poor at an Ivy League (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13480802 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13480802). Personally, I thought that I never really felt disparate enough where I actually stuck out to my peers, and that the thoughts everyone had were more akin to class anxiety. It seems that the thoughts are not always unfounded I guess. Oh well.
- aaronchall 10y ago
  I was frequently picked on for using words they (other students, many better off than me) knew the meaning of but would rather play dumb and try to make me feel bad. I tried to empathize, but since I didn't value going along to get along, I didn't play along, and I didn't earn a lot of loyal friends that way. It's not about class so much as values, and it wasn't my parent's values so much as it was my identity and valuing intelligence (although no adults I ever met devalued intelligence).
- steverb 10y ago
  Ha. Apparently you haven't learned not to pontificate yet.
jmduke 10y ago
I strongly agree that the benefits of exposing students to a wide variety of mindsets, abilities and experiences is just as valuable, if not more valuable, than being able to tailor curricula to fit the ability of students perfectly. I think the ideal is a little bit of both: strong multi-track curricula with common social ground + experiences.
rayiner 10y ago
> Here in the U.S., very few public high schools have single-track education, at least not for "core" subjects such as English, math, and science. There are typically remedial, standard, honors, and AP classes for these subjects. It's not just curriculum, though. The whole structure of the school is usually oriented toward "managing the lowest common denominator." Grade schools have more in common with prisons than they do with any other societal institution. Imagine a school with a few fixed lectures during the day, self-directed study time built in, and the ability to take a break or get a snack at the student's convenience. That's basically college for most people, but a lot of kids are mature enough to handle something like that at a much younger age.
- emidln 10y ago
  My high school was mostly like this. "Block-8" scheduling was utilized, which resulted in four, roughly ninety minute classes per day, with our days alternating between an "A" and a "B". This provided for 8 classes per semester. Classes were typically broken up into 30-45 minutes of lecture and the remaining time for group work or individual study.
caseysoftware 10y ago
While it's heavily maligned, this was one of the points of The Bell Curve. 200 years ago, the smartest and dumbest person both probably lived and died on the same farm. 100 years ago, it wasn't noticeably different. Around the 1920s/30s, society started segmenting the higher end out into higher education and then completely different career/life paths. Fast forward another 50 years and people on the higher and lower ends of intellect rarely meet. Think of the people you interact with on a daily basis - unless you're doing things completely outside the realm of intellect - and you'll start to realize that the vast majority of them aren't far off from you intellectually. This applies at the top and bottom.
ng12 10y ago
The diversity bit sounds nice in theory but as a kid who loved learning and went to highschool in a socioeconomically challenged area I would have given anything to go to a charter school. It was frankly a terrifying environment. Also a significant amount of the school's resources went to these kids who just didn't want to be there. They had to pay for two security guards, overtime pay for the teachers who did detention/Sunday school, etc. They only offered 4 AP classes each of which had ~50 students because they were the ones who wouldn't get into fights if you just stuffed them into a room with some books.
- ryandrake 10y ago
  Yea, I was in a school full of knuckleheads and criminals (rural town, most students were expected to go work in the local mill after graduating. College? LOL). I can count on one hand the number of students in my year who ever even made it out of the state. Most of the rest are probably in jail or running meth labs. I would have given anything to go to one of the richer schools where you could interact with folks, peers and teachers, who gave a shit, and where didn't have to worry about getting assaulted daily.
ygaf 10y ago
>giftedness varies wildly by subject. If you attend a school for gifted students, would there be an expectation that you would be gifted in all subject areas? I think a superschool should allow each student to be ordinary in X subjects. In other words, two levels of acceptable marks depending on the student. Splitting a student's school life between two schools cannot be an option, it also doubles administration.
habosa 10y ago
> And I would think that if you're OK with multi-track education, it would seem like having a separate school for gifted students is just an extension of that. I think this is a big leap. I went to a large public high school (~2500 students total) with 3 tracks for each subject. I was in the highest track the whole time, but I would not support physically segregating students like me into a separate school. There are a number of benefits to keeping people in the same school: 1. It's socially beneficial to have high school friends who are different than you are. Many of my best friends were not in my classes but we hung out at lunch time and in after school activities. I think we learned a lot of intangible things from each other. 2. Parental involvement. Parents of kids who are high achievers are more likely to want to see the school go in the right direction. Having involved parents keeps the whole school administration on their toes and brings the general standard of the school up for everyone. If the high achievers had their own school the other students would have fewer advocates. When American schools were racially desegregated we saw gains across the board: https://tcf.org/content/facts/the-benefits-of-socioeconomically-and-racially-integrated-schools-and-classrooms/ https://tcf.org/content/facts/the-benefits-of-socioeconomica... While separating gifted students is not the same as separating by race, I think a lot of lessons can be learned from that previous experience.

by jawns 10y ago

jschwartzi 10y ago

Mostly what I learned in high school was how to talk to kids from blue-collar families. Don't use multi-syllabic words, and talk only in concrete terms. Avoid use of abstraction and don't pontificate about anything.

dvcc 10y ago
Wow, as a member of a blue-collar family this is downright insulting. The gross generalization of an entire social class is anything but healthy. Funny enough, I just finished reading the article and comments from the story on what it's like to be poor at an Ivy League (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13480802 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13480802). Personally, I thought that I never really felt disparate enough where I actually stuck out to my peers, and that the thoughts everyone had were more akin to class anxiety. It seems that the thoughts are not always unfounded I guess. Oh well.
aaronchall 10y ago
I was frequently picked on for using words they (other students, many better off than me) knew the meaning of but would rather play dumb and try to make me feel bad. I tried to empathize, but since I didn't value going along to get along, I didn't play along, and I didn't earn a lot of loyal friends that way. It's not about class so much as values, and it wasn't my parent's values so much as it was my identity and valuing intelligence (although no adults I ever met devalued intelligence).
steverb 10y ago
Ha. Apparently you haven't learned not to pontificate yet.

jmduke 10y ago

I strongly agree that the benefits of exposing students to a wide variety of mindsets, abilities and experiences is just as valuable, if not more valuable, than being able to tailor curricula to fit the ability of students perfectly. I think the ideal is a little bit of both: strong multi-track curricula with common social ground + experiences.

rayiner 10y ago

> Here in the U.S., very few public high schools have single-track education, at least not for "core" subjects such as English, math, and science. There are typically remedial, standard, honors, and AP classes for these subjects. It's not just curriculum, though. The whole structure of the school is usually oriented toward "managing the lowest common denominator." Grade schools have more in common with prisons than they do with any other societal institution. Imagine a school with a few fixed lectures during the day, self-directed study time built in, and the ability to take a break or get a snack at the student's convenience. That's basically college for most people, but a lot of kids are mature enough to handle something like that at a much younger age.

emidln 10y ago
My high school was mostly like this. "Block-8" scheduling was utilized, which resulted in four, roughly ninety minute classes per day, with our days alternating between an "A" and a "B". This provided for 8 classes per semester. Classes were typically broken up into 30-45 minutes of lecture and the remaining time for group work or individual study.

caseysoftware 10y ago

While it's heavily maligned, this was one of the points of The Bell Curve. 200 years ago, the smartest and dumbest person both probably lived and died on the same farm. 100 years ago, it wasn't noticeably different. Around the 1920s/30s, society started segmenting the higher end out into higher education and then completely different career/life paths. Fast forward another 50 years and people on the higher and lower ends of intellect rarely meet. Think of the people you interact with on a daily basis - unless you're doing things completely outside the realm of intellect - and you'll start to realize that the vast majority of them aren't far off from you intellectually. This applies at the top and bottom.

ng12 10y ago

The diversity bit sounds nice in theory but as a kid who loved learning and went to highschool in a socioeconomically challenged area I would have given anything to go to a charter school. It was frankly a terrifying environment. Also a significant amount of the school's resources went to these kids who just didn't want to be there. They had to pay for two security guards, overtime pay for the teachers who did detention/Sunday school, etc. They only offered 4 AP classes each of which had ~50 students because they were the ones who wouldn't get into fights if you just stuffed them into a room with some books.

ryandrake 10y ago
Yea, I was in a school full of knuckleheads and criminals (rural town, most students were expected to go work in the local mill after graduating. College? LOL). I can count on one hand the number of students in my year who ever even made it out of the state. Most of the rest are probably in jail or running meth labs. I would have given anything to go to one of the richer schools where you could interact with folks, peers and teachers, who gave a shit, and where didn't have to worry about getting assaulted daily.

ygaf 10y ago

>giftedness varies wildly by subject. If you attend a school for gifted students, would there be an expectation that you would be gifted in all subject areas? I think a superschool should allow each student to be ordinary in X subjects. In other words, two levels of acceptable marks depending on the student. Splitting a student's school life between two schools cannot be an option, it also doubles administration.

habosa 10y ago

> And I would think that if you're OK with multi-track education, it would seem like having a separate school for gifted students is just an extension of that. I think this is a big leap. I went to a large public high school (~2500 students total) with 3 tracks for each subject. I was in the highest track the whole time, but I would not support physically segregating students like me into a separate school. There are a number of benefits to keeping people in the same school: 1. It's socially beneficial to have high school friends who are different than you are. Many of my best friends were not in my classes but we hung out at lunch time and in after school activities. I think we learned a lot of intangible things from each other. 2. Parental involvement. Parents of kids who are high achievers are more likely to want to see the school go in the right direction. Having involved parents keeps the whole school administration on their toes and brings the general standard of the school up for everyone. If the high achievers had their own school the other students would have fewer advocates. When American schools were racially desegregated we saw gains across the board: https://tcf.org/content/facts/the-benefits-of-socioeconomically-and-racially-integrated-schools-and-classrooms/ https://tcf.org/content/facts/the-benefits-of-socioeconomica... While separating gifted students is not the same as separating by race, I think a lot of lessons can be learned from that previous experience.