6 ms·

As someone who has been through many forms of 'gifted' and 'enriched' and 'special' education, these articles always sadden me. Does anyone truly believe that o

As someone who has been through many forms of 'gifted' and 'enriched' and 'special' education, these articles always sadden me. Does anyone truly believe that optimizing children for their economic output really leads to a good life for their country? Here's a radical idea: let them have childhoods! I strongly support letting kids be free to develop and think for themselves. If a 'gifted' child can succeed despite being imprisoned in a school for many years, imagine how much they could grow and contribute if they were free? For anyone with children, or who cares about the future of western democracy, please look into https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudbury_school https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudbury_school

wyattpeak 9y ago
I'll bite - yes, I think it leads to both a good life for them and benefit for country. I don't know what your gifted education programs were like, but I never recall feeling like I missed out on my childhood. Occasionally I would take different classes to some of my friends (but with others), and that was about it. Far from keeping people from being free to develop and think for themselves, most of the gifted classes I took actively encouraged that, with open-ended problem solving and free-form classes often led by student interest. But children need to be reined in, they don't have the reasoning skills or understanding of adults; the one time I was allowed to fully control my own syllabus it led almost directly to me losing the ability to speak Cantonese, which I'd been fluent in up to that point. As a kid who'd spoken it all his life, I simply didn't believe all of the people who told me I'd forget it without practice. Because I was a child. I don't know exactly how free-form Sudbury Schools are, but I'd have extreme reservations about sending my children to one.
- crawfordcomeaux 9y ago
  So the lesson you learned wasn't that you had the power to choose what you learned and how to do so responsibly? Did you instead learn these things?: • exercising that power could lead to you losing a skill • doing so is bad • you don't have the power to choose your own course corrections when you notice a skill waning Based on your suggestion that children need to be controlled, I think your experience was limited and too short.
  - wyattpeak 9y ago
    I grant I learned all of those things, but I think pretty well everyone learns those things by adulthood, and I don't think my forgetting a language especially honed my understanding of those points. I don't even know if you're arguing in good faith, because your second dot point isn't really a thing that even a child needs to learn. I'll also thank you not to suggest that our differences of opinion are due to your superior understanding of my upbringing.
    - crawfordcomeaux 9y ago
      I agree...I think those are things we're culturally taught, typically implicitly and not explicitly. And I don't assume to have an understanding of your upbringing. That's why I was posing it all as questions. The points I made are things I think can potentially hinder learning and are commonplace in society.
  - ygaf 9y ago
    You ultimately have to want the skill. The gp would have noticed his skill gradually waning, not suddenly when it had gone, yet as a kid he didn't care for it.
    - dasyatidprime 9y ago
      How would you notice a skill waning if you aren't using it at the time?
      - ygaf 9y ago
        You're right, I don't know what actual skill I had in mind there (one are you are no longer trained in but still use). I meant to say, even when a kid is wise to the danger of not taking lessons, they don't know what subjects are best for them or how many different ones must be pursued.
        crawfordcomeaux 9y ago
bmandell 9y ago
Hey @scientician, I have been reading about the Sudbury school for a few years now and do research on children's learning in relation to IQ (publications coming soon). Do you have any connections to the school?
- scientician 9y ago
  Not yet! My long-term plan is to travel around and staff at as many freedom schools as I can, and then bring that model back home to Toronto. I'm in the process of winding up my commitments now so I can commit all my resources to the journey. Were you able to include Sudbury data in your research?
paulsutter 9y ago
My early life was miserable for the exact reason that people wanted me to "have a childhood" and held me back from what I really wanted to do. I didn't work as a programmer until I was 16. I do agree that "gifted" programs are mostly a waste, given that schoolteachers are unlikely to have any useful advice for any given students' area of interest.
- rfugger 9y ago
  The whole point of non-coercive education is to allow children to pursue what they actually want to do, not what some adults believe they should do. It is just as counterproductive to force a child to learn computer programming when they want to be playing outside as it is to force them to play outside when they want to be programming computers!
  - Avamander 9y ago
    > The whole point of non-coercive education is to allow children to pursue what they actually want to do. In my personal opinion pushing students to do different things is a good way to introduce new ideas and skills to people. I totally disagree with those who say things like cursive or literature are useless when you "just want to be a programmer", they all give the possibility of finding new ways of thinking or improve some parts of the brain. In the context of cursive for example, I think acquiring better motor skills means that a programmer could type faster thus making that faster-typing programmer a bit better than other programmers. If I were given the choice to do what I wanted to do I would suck at what I would want to do. For example I don't like math much, but if I weren't forced to "just" do it I wouldn't understand way too many basic concepts in for example programming. Though I do agree with the idea of mentors guiding students, I remember reading a paper about it being super effective compared to regular classroom teaching, I really wish I would have had that chance back when I was younger.
    - njarboe 9y ago
      Back before mass public education (100 years ago?) these mentors were called parents, relatives, and friends of the former. Maybe, as we no longer need to train people to get places on time and be a cog in an industrial factory, we can return to this method of education. Then move on to an apprenticeship when one is old enough.
ygaf 9y ago
"The fundamental premises of the school are simple: that all people are curious by nature; that the most efficient, long-lasting, and profound learning takes place when started and pursued by the learner" No doubt about that. They'll obsess over whatever they enjoy. And the following line that "all people are creative if they are allowed to develop their unique talents" implies that your average person's creative ouput is important or even worthwhile to society.
jlebar 9y ago
Here's a radical idea: let [gifted kids] have childhoods! As a child who experienced both "regular" and gifted education, I can say with some certainty that: My "childhood" began when I entered gifted school. Before that I was bullied, I didn't fit in, I wasn't challenged, and I was unhappy. It was my personal experience and the experience of many of the students around me at gifted school that this was what we wanted. We were happy and grateful to be around "our kind". Precisely because we could be the kids we wanted to be. That feeling certainly wasn't universal. It wasn't for everyone. And I will readily grant that schools -- even gifted schools -- are prison-like and could be improved. But I reject the notion you seem to be arguing that these programs are prima facie harmful (or at best not helpful), as compared to the standard-education alternative.
- scientician 9y ago
  I definitely did not intend to make any argument supporting the standard alternative. My argument is that the standard model is harmful, and gifted programs are only slightly less harmful.

wyattpeak 9y ago

I'll bite - yes, I think it leads to both a good life for them and benefit for country. I don't know what your gifted education programs were like, but I never recall feeling like I missed out on my childhood. Occasionally I would take different classes to some of my friends (but with others), and that was about it. Far from keeping people from being free to develop and think for themselves, most of the gifted classes I took actively encouraged that, with open-ended problem solving and free-form classes often led by student interest. But children need to be reined in, they don't have the reasoning skills or understanding of adults; the one time I was allowed to fully control my own syllabus it led almost directly to me losing the ability to speak Cantonese, which I'd been fluent in up to that point. As a kid who'd spoken it all his life, I simply didn't believe all of the people who told me I'd forget it without practice. Because I was a child. I don't know exactly how free-form Sudbury Schools are, but I'd have extreme reservations about sending my children to one.

crawfordcomeaux 9y ago
So the lesson you learned wasn't that you had the power to choose what you learned and how to do so responsibly? Did you instead learn these things?: • exercising that power could lead to you losing a skill • doing so is bad • you don't have the power to choose your own course corrections when you notice a skill waning Based on your suggestion that children need to be controlled, I think your experience was limited and too short.
- wyattpeak 9y ago
  I grant I learned all of those things, but I think pretty well everyone learns those things by adulthood, and I don't think my forgetting a language especially honed my understanding of those points. I don't even know if you're arguing in good faith, because your second dot point isn't really a thing that even a child needs to learn. I'll also thank you not to suggest that our differences of opinion are due to your superior understanding of my upbringing.
  - crawfordcomeaux 9y ago
    I agree...I think those are things we're culturally taught, typically implicitly and not explicitly. And I don't assume to have an understanding of your upbringing. That's why I was posing it all as questions. The points I made are things I think can potentially hinder learning and are commonplace in society.
- ygaf 9y ago
  You ultimately have to want the skill. The gp would have noticed his skill gradually waning, not suddenly when it had gone, yet as a kid he didn't care for it.
  - dasyatidprime 9y ago
    How would you notice a skill waning if you aren't using it at the time?
    - ygaf 9y ago
      You're right, I don't know what actual skill I had in mind there (one are you are no longer trained in but still use). I meant to say, even when a kid is wise to the danger of not taking lessons, they don't know what subjects are best for them or how many different ones must be pursued.
      - crawfordcomeaux 9y ago

bmandell 9y ago

Hey @scientician, I have been reading about the Sudbury school for a few years now and do research on children's learning in relation to IQ (publications coming soon). Do you have any connections to the school?

scientician 9y ago
Not yet! My long-term plan is to travel around and staff at as many freedom schools as I can, and then bring that model back home to Toronto. I'm in the process of winding up my commitments now so I can commit all my resources to the journey. Were you able to include Sudbury data in your research?

paulsutter 9y ago

My early life was miserable for the exact reason that people wanted me to "have a childhood" and held me back from what I really wanted to do. I didn't work as a programmer until I was 16. I do agree that "gifted" programs are mostly a waste, given that schoolteachers are unlikely to have any useful advice for any given students' area of interest.

rfugger 9y ago
The whole point of non-coercive education is to allow children to pursue what they actually want to do, not what some adults believe they should do. It is just as counterproductive to force a child to learn computer programming when they want to be playing outside as it is to force them to play outside when they want to be programming computers!
- Avamander 9y ago
  > The whole point of non-coercive education is to allow children to pursue what they actually want to do. In my personal opinion pushing students to do different things is a good way to introduce new ideas and skills to people. I totally disagree with those who say things like cursive or literature are useless when you "just want to be a programmer", they all give the possibility of finding new ways of thinking or improve some parts of the brain. In the context of cursive for example, I think acquiring better motor skills means that a programmer could type faster thus making that faster-typing programmer a bit better than other programmers. If I were given the choice to do what I wanted to do I would suck at what I would want to do. For example I don't like math much, but if I weren't forced to "just" do it I wouldn't understand way too many basic concepts in for example programming. Though I do agree with the idea of mentors guiding students, I remember reading a paper about it being super effective compared to regular classroom teaching, I really wish I would have had that chance back when I was younger.
  - njarboe 9y ago
    Back before mass public education (100 years ago?) these mentors were called parents, relatives, and friends of the former. Maybe, as we no longer need to train people to get places on time and be a cog in an industrial factory, we can return to this method of education. Then move on to an apprenticeship when one is old enough.

ygaf 9y ago

"The fundamental premises of the school are simple: that all people are curious by nature; that the most efficient, long-lasting, and profound learning takes place when started and pursued by the learner" No doubt about that. They'll obsess over whatever they enjoy. And the following line that "all people are creative if they are allowed to develop their unique talents" implies that your average person's creative ouput is important or even worthwhile to society.

jlebar 9y ago

Here's a radical idea: let [gifted kids] have childhoods! As a child who experienced both "regular" and gifted education, I can say with some certainty that: My "childhood" began when I entered gifted school. Before that I was bullied, I didn't fit in, I wasn't challenged, and I was unhappy. It was my personal experience and the experience of many of the students around me at gifted school that this was what we wanted. We were happy and grateful to be around "our kind". Precisely because we could be the kids we wanted to be. That feeling certainly wasn't universal. It wasn't for everyone. And I will readily grant that schools -- even gifted schools -- are prison-like and could be improved. But I reject the notion you seem to be arguing that these programs are prima facie harmful (or at best not helpful), as compared to the standard-education alternative.

scientician 9y ago
I definitely did not intend to make any argument supporting the standard alternative. My argument is that the standard model is harmful, and gifted programs are only slightly less harmful.