5 ms·

Most of the children don't want, don't care or just plain stupid to be able to grasp the subjects. It makes sense to isolate together those who can. The specia

Most of the children don't want, don't care or just plain stupid to be able to grasp the subjects. It makes sense to isolate together those who can. The special schools don't do anything special, they just cut down the distractions, shift 0.5-2 university years into the school and spice things up with some competitive math/physics/programming/chemistry/biology/geography/etc.

neuronic 6y ago
Yep, school is moving at the pace of the slowest common denominator.
emteycz 6y ago
I don't believe there is anything as too stupid child. Not even a stupid child. They become stupid adults, often because of school and people there treating them as stupid children when in fact it's a problem with the socioeconomical/family situation.
- gerland 6y ago
  There will always be stupid kids in a world where intelligence levels vary. In the 80s and 90s some attempts were made to try to escape this reality by changing the question. Multiple-factor intelligence models were proposed and widely accepted by pop-psychology, but most academics acknowledge now that there is some general intelligence level, a "g-factor". Anecdotal - I always remember my aunt who was a literature teacher. She always stuck to those ideas and told me that it's obvious that there are different types of talents, because there are people that are good at maths, but do a lousy job in her classes. What she did acknowledge once though, was that people that were good at maths were also the ones that have been writing the best essays from all of her students. There was something that underpined their skills in both areas, but since they knew that they can achive something real in maths they probably did not try so hard to "pick the right key" in interpretive literature tasks. On the other hand for those students that were a bit slower literature was the only field that thay could perform well. Good literature students did not have any particular field in maths that they could perform well in. They stuck to literature, because they could memorize all the important answers and boast that they poses some innate talent. Anecdotal 2 - Sure, there are some kids that could perform in one area better than in the other, but in my experience this variance is overshadowed by the difference between kids that can do ALL things well and kids that can do NO things well. EDIT: A nice example of the multi-factor intelligence "scam" are the books from D. Goleman in "Emotional Intelligence" series. They were mostly targeted for middle management people and were very in line with the whole trend. The main motive is that emotional intelligence is a much bigger factor than general intelligence in the context of career progression and overall success in life. What was not made obvious is that the comparisons were done in environments of people that were already successful. If you take a group of people that have a high iq level, then it's very possible that the most successful will be the ones that can work with people a little better. Unfortunately it's not sufficient to be a peoples person to achieve high efficiency in such environments. The "hidden" conclusion was: GI + EI > GI; EI < GI; GI + GI < GI + EI (at least to some degree). There were also some unresolved questions - can you really possess EI without a sufficient level of GI? Isn't EI just a form of GI? In summary there was a lot more of nitpicking of definitions than actual science. It all felt like p-value hacking on language level.
- de_watcher 6y ago
  When you're in such a school you can really feel what's up, especially in Soviet/post-Soviet case: the socioeconomical situation is exactly the same (because communism), and you usually know the families of other pupils. Then you see the ones who try hard but still can't get it, you also see the lazy smarts.
  - TomMarius 6y ago
    I am a kid from a post-communist state. What I saw was that abused children had it very rough even though they were very bright, and the lazy smarts generally had perfect conditions at home with loving parents ready to help at any time - and I don't mean with homework itself. You wouldn't believe what sense of not being loved and stress does to a child. > the socioeconomical situation is exactly the same (because communism) Not true at all. It might look that way to an american, but there are things like social capital, and it's not even true for financial capital. From USA perspective we were all equally poor, but from our perspective and "in our world", 300 vs 900 usd monthly wage is (was) a huuuuuge difference. You have to consider that my parents and parents of my former classmates were raised during actual communism. Do you know how they raised children during communism? They beat them, because disobedience could mean death or lifelong prison or being sent to uranium mines - for the whole family. One bad word was all it took. And many parents haven't yet realized, even today's, that this is not the correct way. On top of that, during the 90's, rampant corruption has emerged, then the economical crisis, etc. And then of course the teachers - their role during communism was different that what it should really be today, and many have not realized yet.
    - de_watcher 6y ago
      The "social capital" was based on the proximity to the ruling minority. The power was greatly centralized so there weren't many of those type of families. Majority had all same: same stuff like photocopied all over the place. About the beatings: it's more about the Russian culture, it's even kinda normal for the husband-wife relationships in some regions. To the West there was less of it.
      - 6y ago
burpsnard 6y ago
Im crap at math, but annoyed at why. Read about math teaching, and what I found was that there's nothing that correlates with math ability except interest and encouragement (and general iq). There's no genes, brain scans, blood tests, or behavioral signs at preschool age that can predict math success. Teacher ability and enthusiasm likely plays a role.
- cynicalreason 6y ago
  I believe the opposite when it comes to 'behavioral signs at preschool age' .. I think a child natural inclination towards 'math like' sciences is visible very early

neuronic 6y ago

Yep, school is moving at the pace of the slowest common denominator.

emteycz 6y ago

I don't believe there is anything as too stupid child. Not even a stupid child. They become stupid adults, often because of school and people there treating them as stupid children when in fact it's a problem with the socioeconomical/family situation.

gerland 6y ago
There will always be stupid kids in a world where intelligence levels vary. In the 80s and 90s some attempts were made to try to escape this reality by changing the question. Multiple-factor intelligence models were proposed and widely accepted by pop-psychology, but most academics acknowledge now that there is some general intelligence level, a "g-factor". Anecdotal - I always remember my aunt who was a literature teacher. She always stuck to those ideas and told me that it's obvious that there are different types of talents, because there are people that are good at maths, but do a lousy job in her classes. What she did acknowledge once though, was that people that were good at maths were also the ones that have been writing the best essays from all of her students. There was something that underpined their skills in both areas, but since they knew that they can achive something real in maths they probably did not try so hard to "pick the right key" in interpretive literature tasks. On the other hand for those students that were a bit slower literature was the only field that thay could perform well. Good literature students did not have any particular field in maths that they could perform well in. They stuck to literature, because they could memorize all the important answers and boast that they poses some innate talent. Anecdotal 2 - Sure, there are some kids that could perform in one area better than in the other, but in my experience this variance is overshadowed by the difference between kids that can do ALL things well and kids that can do NO things well. EDIT: A nice example of the multi-factor intelligence "scam" are the books from D. Goleman in "Emotional Intelligence" series. They were mostly targeted for middle management people and were very in line with the whole trend. The main motive is that emotional intelligence is a much bigger factor than general intelligence in the context of career progression and overall success in life. What was not made obvious is that the comparisons were done in environments of people that were already successful. If you take a group of people that have a high iq level, then it's very possible that the most successful will be the ones that can work with people a little better. Unfortunately it's not sufficient to be a peoples person to achieve high efficiency in such environments. The "hidden" conclusion was: GI + EI > GI; EI < GI; GI + GI < GI + EI (at least to some degree). There were also some unresolved questions - can you really possess EI without a sufficient level of GI? Isn't EI just a form of GI? In summary there was a lot more of nitpicking of definitions than actual science. It all felt like p-value hacking on language level.
de_watcher 6y ago
When you're in such a school you can really feel what's up, especially in Soviet/post-Soviet case: the socioeconomical situation is exactly the same (because communism), and you usually know the families of other pupils. Then you see the ones who try hard but still can't get it, you also see the lazy smarts.
- TomMarius 6y ago
  I am a kid from a post-communist state. What I saw was that abused children had it very rough even though they were very bright, and the lazy smarts generally had perfect conditions at home with loving parents ready to help at any time - and I don't mean with homework itself. You wouldn't believe what sense of not being loved and stress does to a child. > the socioeconomical situation is exactly the same (because communism) Not true at all. It might look that way to an american, but there are things like social capital, and it's not even true for financial capital. From USA perspective we were all equally poor, but from our perspective and "in our world", 300 vs 900 usd monthly wage is (was) a huuuuuge difference. You have to consider that my parents and parents of my former classmates were raised during actual communism. Do you know how they raised children during communism? They beat them, because disobedience could mean death or lifelong prison or being sent to uranium mines - for the whole family. One bad word was all it took. And many parents haven't yet realized, even today's, that this is not the correct way. On top of that, during the 90's, rampant corruption has emerged, then the economical crisis, etc. And then of course the teachers - their role during communism was different that what it should really be today, and many have not realized yet.
  - de_watcher 6y ago
    The "social capital" was based on the proximity to the ruling minority. The power was greatly centralized so there weren't many of those type of families. Majority had all same: same stuff like photocopied all over the place. About the beatings: it's more about the Russian culture, it's even kinda normal for the husband-wife relationships in some regions. To the West there was less of it.
    - 6y ago

burpsnard 6y ago

Im crap at math, but annoyed at why. Read about math teaching, and what I found was that there's nothing that correlates with math ability except interest and encouragement (and general iq). There's no genes, brain scans, blood tests, or behavioral signs at preschool age that can predict math success. Teacher ability and enthusiasm likely plays a role.

cynicalreason 6y ago
I believe the opposite when it comes to 'behavioral signs at preschool age' .. I think a child natural inclination towards 'math like' sciences is visible very early