5 ms·

I've seen test numbers where the top 5% group learn around 5-10x faster than the 50% group. The numbers hold for short term recall, long term recall, problem so

I've seen test numbers where the top 5% group learn around 5-10x faster than the 50% group. The numbers hold for short term recall, long term recall, problem solving, critical and creative thinking, etc. There is no way "school" can equalise this. There is no reason to keep stuffing everyone in one box.

danenania 6y ago
I believe that in Japan, they deal with this disparity by asking the top students to help teach others in the class. It seems like an interesting approach in that teaching something well requires a much higher bar of understanding than doing well on a test, and it’s an excellent way to reinforce knowledge for the one doing the teaching. So the top students get a more difficult challenge than just coasting along, and the other students benefit as well. And, of course, it promotes teamwork and solidarity. I’m sure there are downsides too. Perhaps it could create tension between the “teacher’s pets” and the others?
- kstenerud 6y ago
  This is also how the school houses of old worked. You'd have all ages present since the population was so small, and the older kids would teach the younger kids while also doing their own studies. This was a big help for socializing skills and empathy, since you were no longer segregated by age or sex and were exposed to many age groups with their own challenges throughout your early schooling.
- geomark 6y ago
  That seems to be true, that teaching something solidifies one's understanding. Trouble is when top students are always teaching things that are well below their capability, rather than pushing onwards and upwards to more challenging levels. A balance between the two might be better, which is hard to do even in smaller classrooms.
  - nkingsy 6y ago
    IMO school is mostly about socialization. Sticking the smart kids in one classroom or segregating their work means they don’t gain empathy for those who aren’t as gifted with academics. I’d argue the most important skill for a smart young person is empathy.
    - david38 6y ago
      Well, knowing how to “play with the other children”. Social skills that work with a variety of people are something you can’t get by studying alone. That said, it doesn’t take years and years to learn. On the other hand, there have been numerous studies conducted by educators regarding what to do with the “best and the brightest”. Above all, we have learned what NOT to do. What you don’t do is make too big a deal out of it. The label rapidly becomes their identity and they hold onto it for dear life. This translates into becoming highly risk averse. In time this means they get passed by the average students who don’t have such fear of “no longer being considered a genius” and happily take more risks. We know a few points * don’t talk about it much, it’s just “fun stuff” the kid is doing * let him do it. Kids learn to hate school that makes them feel bored * let them ease out or drop out if it without guilt or warnings about how their future will be average Being “gifted” is one thing. Having the self drive to show something for it over a period of years is another.
- netjiro 6y ago
  And it is also a waste of resources. The top slice of population can do amazing things if given resources and time. Why waste that? It's the most crucial resource we have!
  - 6DM 6y ago
    I don't consider it a waste of resources. It will help them develop their leadership and communication skills. This will be essential if they want to motivate a team of people to achieve something later in life.
    - netjiro 6y ago
      Great, I agree in principal, but run the numbers. Is it worth spending 1h of the day learning new things then 7h teaching others? I say that is wasteful.
  - pengstrom 6y ago
    It's only waste if you don't find helping others valuable.
- vidarh 6y ago
  My two best teachers (this was in Norway) took two very different approaches. One basically gave me a free reign to move ahead of the rest of the class and brought in more advanced text books for me, let me suggest my own homework etc. It took extra work for her, so I was lucky she put in the effort. The other did what you suggest, and would have me go around and help others as soon as finished my own work. It was useful as a means to learn to understand what other people found difficult and why. It might not have helped that much with my understanding of the subject (maths) itself, but it helped with problem solving skills - having to come up with different ways of explaining things or approach a problem from different angles to whichever one I thought was most obvious when that "obvious" angle didn't work for someone else, and I think that was useful.
- qqn 6y ago
  "When one teaches, two learn."
alistairSH 6y ago
There is no way "school" can equalise this. There is, but it involves identifying the high achievers and putting them on a different track. Without too much thought, this sounds great. Except in real life, you end up with kids who are late-bloomers stuck in the "average" track. Or poor kids who didn't learn to read until kindergarten stuck in the "remedial" track for life. As a society (in the US), we haven't been willing or able to solve those problems. The closest we've come is offering a few "gifted" courses to those high achievers (or forcing parents to pay for a private education). But, at the primary school level, that's generally a few hours/week of extra instruction. And at the secondary school level, it's AP/IB courses, but we've pushed the "college for all" narrative so hard that those are now watered-down crap at a lot of schools.
mkl 6y ago
That sounds amazing. Do you have a link to the study?
- zo1 6y ago
  I'd like the link as well. Good luck finding anything related to this on Google or Google Scholar. At this point, I'd have more luck starting from the IQ page on Wikipedia.
- netjiro 6y ago
  Sadly, these are aggregates of unpublished results, from multiple sources I've talked to over the years. Last year of "gymnasium" (grade 12), right before I started my university masters program: I was travelling most of the year and only returned to school two months before graduation. I spent less than two months, on my own, reading up on a year's worth of what amounts to a specialised "science focused high school" program. Then testing through, taking all tests and assignments for a year, and got the top result from both schools in the city. 1000+ students graduating that year. This was pretty insane, so I started digging. How was it possible to score so well after so little time, studying alone, when everyone else had 10 months of class. I'm not 200 IQ with eidetic memory. So I started talking with teachers and professors I came in contact with. Very few actually had data available, but those who had... Wow! Regardless of whether it's young children, high school, or university students the numbers were similar. The top few are simply so much faster than the rest. I'm absolutely sure that good pedagogical methods have a huge effect on the students' learning. But even the best methods and tutors can't make up the difference. The "5%", specifically, comes from two sources. A physics teacher and a math professor. They were both very interested in pedagogical methods and were experimenting and keeping detailed data on every student they had taught, over decades. Scoring them on a wide variety of tests and situations. Both had similar numbers, falling around 5-10x between the top 5% and the median. My impression is that this is simply an issue that most societies don't want to know or deal with. It certainly is not hard to test for. Specifically, the physics teacher mentioned above told me that the municipal head of schools had threatened to fire him when he tried to discuss the data to improve the teaching for high capacity students.
bonoboTP 6y ago
A curious kid can pace themselves along with a the rest just fine. Are the topics taught too long for your talent? Then dig deeper in each. Say, you're learning about magnetism in physics class but you learn the requirements in half the time allocated. Then textbooks usually contain small print optional advanced topics or references, you can read additional stuff online maybe ask the teacher for further direction. Any topic has almost vast depth with specialists spending their career studying just a tiny section of it. You can never exhaust a topic. Don't just skip ahead to the next lesson as that will make things boring but engage each more deeply. The reason to stuff everyone in one box is socialization. A group of students subjected to shared experiences will develop community and solidarity easier than every individual student bouncing in their own special way in the system. It has even been observed that people can bond over a shared meal better than if everyone eats their own different food. Overall a huge huge part of school is about socializing, with fellow students or against fellow students, obeying and rebelling against teachers, being honest or cheating to copy your homework, the dynamics of bullying and protecting from bullies, snitching on others or lying to protect minor wrongdoers, feeling guilt when you made the wrong decision, feeling proud for the right decision, discovering the difference of rules and morals, of friendship and togetherness and betrayal and loyalty, of acting tough or showing compassion, of romance and heartbreak, etc. So many lessons that aren't taught by teachers explicitly or asked on a test. But these add up to a stable individual later on who can draw from a rich well of experiences for later reference, even in adulthood. You can do a lot of low risk experimentation at that age. If people become atomized, dropped into a class full of almost strangers in each subject, there is no way to develop group dynamics of the above sort. Maybe you can do some of it with your sports team but you spend much less time with them than with a shared class.
- whatshisface 6y ago
  >A curious kid can pace themselves along with a the rest just fine. Are the topics taught too long for your talent? Then dig deeper in each. This is not as practical as one would hope, because all of the assigned work and hours of lecturing would still be repetitive and boring. Can a smart kid stop doing times tables on problem 5 and do calculus for the rest of the worksheet? Can a smart kid decline to show up to class if they already know what will be covered? No, and that's why smart kids think school is too slow.
vmception 6y ago
My public US high school had 3 levels for this Normal Talented and Gifted and Honors TAG were people that planned on doing good in school, generally focused better. Significant overlap with Honors. Honors seemed to sacrifice a life for prestige (tons of Advanced Placement classes) and it didn't seem to really make a practical difference, unless going to college at all is a practical difference to you, everyone went to state schools, maybe one went to Ivy League. The main distinction was that it was a bad school district, non-designated students had almost no expectations, which is why there was a separation at all. The "good schools" in the bad district had Tag and Honors programs. I think it created some solidarity, where philisters would have ostracized the people making an attempt at coursework. The general concept can work in better school districts though.

danenania 6y ago

I believe that in Japan, they deal with this disparity by asking the top students to help teach others in the class. It seems like an interesting approach in that teaching something well requires a much higher bar of understanding than doing well on a test, and it’s an excellent way to reinforce knowledge for the one doing the teaching. So the top students get a more difficult challenge than just coasting along, and the other students benefit as well. And, of course, it promotes teamwork and solidarity. I’m sure there are downsides too. Perhaps it could create tension between the “teacher’s pets” and the others?

kstenerud 6y ago
This is also how the school houses of old worked. You'd have all ages present since the population was so small, and the older kids would teach the younger kids while also doing their own studies. This was a big help for socializing skills and empathy, since you were no longer segregated by age or sex and were exposed to many age groups with their own challenges throughout your early schooling.
geomark 6y ago
That seems to be true, that teaching something solidifies one's understanding. Trouble is when top students are always teaching things that are well below their capability, rather than pushing onwards and upwards to more challenging levels. A balance between the two might be better, which is hard to do even in smaller classrooms.
- nkingsy 6y ago
  IMO school is mostly about socialization. Sticking the smart kids in one classroom or segregating their work means they don’t gain empathy for those who aren’t as gifted with academics. I’d argue the most important skill for a smart young person is empathy.
  - david38 6y ago
    Well, knowing how to “play with the other children”. Social skills that work with a variety of people are something you can’t get by studying alone. That said, it doesn’t take years and years to learn. On the other hand, there have been numerous studies conducted by educators regarding what to do with the “best and the brightest”. Above all, we have learned what NOT to do. What you don’t do is make too big a deal out of it. The label rapidly becomes their identity and they hold onto it for dear life. This translates into becoming highly risk averse. In time this means they get passed by the average students who don’t have such fear of “no longer being considered a genius” and happily take more risks. We know a few points * don’t talk about it much, it’s just “fun stuff” the kid is doing * let him do it. Kids learn to hate school that makes them feel bored * let them ease out or drop out if it without guilt or warnings about how their future will be average Being “gifted” is one thing. Having the self drive to show something for it over a period of years is another.
netjiro 6y ago
And it is also a waste of resources. The top slice of population can do amazing things if given resources and time. Why waste that? It's the most crucial resource we have!
- 6DM 6y ago
  I don't consider it a waste of resources. It will help them develop their leadership and communication skills. This will be essential if they want to motivate a team of people to achieve something later in life.
  - netjiro 6y ago
    Great, I agree in principal, but run the numbers. Is it worth spending 1h of the day learning new things then 7h teaching others? I say that is wasteful.
- pengstrom 6y ago
  It's only waste if you don't find helping others valuable.
vidarh 6y ago
My two best teachers (this was in Norway) took two very different approaches. One basically gave me a free reign to move ahead of the rest of the class and brought in more advanced text books for me, let me suggest my own homework etc. It took extra work for her, so I was lucky she put in the effort. The other did what you suggest, and would have me go around and help others as soon as finished my own work. It was useful as a means to learn to understand what other people found difficult and why. It might not have helped that much with my understanding of the subject (maths) itself, but it helped with problem solving skills - having to come up with different ways of explaining things or approach a problem from different angles to whichever one I thought was most obvious when that "obvious" angle didn't work for someone else, and I think that was useful.
qqn 6y ago
"When one teaches, two learn."

alistairSH 6y ago

There is no way "school" can equalise this. There is, but it involves identifying the high achievers and putting them on a different track. Without too much thought, this sounds great. Except in real life, you end up with kids who are late-bloomers stuck in the "average" track. Or poor kids who didn't learn to read until kindergarten stuck in the "remedial" track for life. As a society (in the US), we haven't been willing or able to solve those problems. The closest we've come is offering a few "gifted" courses to those high achievers (or forcing parents to pay for a private education). But, at the primary school level, that's generally a few hours/week of extra instruction. And at the secondary school level, it's AP/IB courses, but we've pushed the "college for all" narrative so hard that those are now watered-down crap at a lot of schools.

mkl 6y ago

That sounds amazing. Do you have a link to the study?

zo1 6y ago
I'd like the link as well. Good luck finding anything related to this on Google or Google Scholar. At this point, I'd have more luck starting from the IQ page on Wikipedia.
netjiro 6y ago
Sadly, these are aggregates of unpublished results, from multiple sources I've talked to over the years. Last year of "gymnasium" (grade 12), right before I started my university masters program: I was travelling most of the year and only returned to school two months before graduation. I spent less than two months, on my own, reading up on a year's worth of what amounts to a specialised "science focused high school" program. Then testing through, taking all tests and assignments for a year, and got the top result from both schools in the city. 1000+ students graduating that year. This was pretty insane, so I started digging. How was it possible to score so well after so little time, studying alone, when everyone else had 10 months of class. I'm not 200 IQ with eidetic memory. So I started talking with teachers and professors I came in contact with. Very few actually had data available, but those who had... Wow! Regardless of whether it's young children, high school, or university students the numbers were similar. The top few are simply so much faster than the rest. I'm absolutely sure that good pedagogical methods have a huge effect on the students' learning. But even the best methods and tutors can't make up the difference. The "5%", specifically, comes from two sources. A physics teacher and a math professor. They were both very interested in pedagogical methods and were experimenting and keeping detailed data on every student they had taught, over decades. Scoring them on a wide variety of tests and situations. Both had similar numbers, falling around 5-10x between the top 5% and the median. My impression is that this is simply an issue that most societies don't want to know or deal with. It certainly is not hard to test for. Specifically, the physics teacher mentioned above told me that the municipal head of schools had threatened to fire him when he tried to discuss the data to improve the teaching for high capacity students.

bonoboTP 6y ago

A curious kid can pace themselves along with a the rest just fine. Are the topics taught too long for your talent? Then dig deeper in each. Say, you're learning about magnetism in physics class but you learn the requirements in half the time allocated. Then textbooks usually contain small print optional advanced topics or references, you can read additional stuff online maybe ask the teacher for further direction. Any topic has almost vast depth with specialists spending their career studying just a tiny section of it. You can never exhaust a topic. Don't just skip ahead to the next lesson as that will make things boring but engage each more deeply. The reason to stuff everyone in one box is socialization. A group of students subjected to shared experiences will develop community and solidarity easier than every individual student bouncing in their own special way in the system. It has even been observed that people can bond over a shared meal better than if everyone eats their own different food. Overall a huge huge part of school is about socializing, with fellow students or against fellow students, obeying and rebelling against teachers, being honest or cheating to copy your homework, the dynamics of bullying and protecting from bullies, snitching on others or lying to protect minor wrongdoers, feeling guilt when you made the wrong decision, feeling proud for the right decision, discovering the difference of rules and morals, of friendship and togetherness and betrayal and loyalty, of acting tough or showing compassion, of romance and heartbreak, etc. So many lessons that aren't taught by teachers explicitly or asked on a test. But these add up to a stable individual later on who can draw from a rich well of experiences for later reference, even in adulthood. You can do a lot of low risk experimentation at that age. If people become atomized, dropped into a class full of almost strangers in each subject, there is no way to develop group dynamics of the above sort. Maybe you can do some of it with your sports team but you spend much less time with them than with a shared class.

whatshisface 6y ago
>A curious kid can pace themselves along with a the rest just fine. Are the topics taught too long for your talent? Then dig deeper in each. This is not as practical as one would hope, because all of the assigned work and hours of lecturing would still be repetitive and boring. Can a smart kid stop doing times tables on problem 5 and do calculus for the rest of the worksheet? Can a smart kid decline to show up to class if they already know what will be covered? No, and that's why smart kids think school is too slow.

vmception 6y ago

My public US high school had 3 levels for this Normal Talented and Gifted and Honors TAG were people that planned on doing good in school, generally focused better. Significant overlap with Honors. Honors seemed to sacrifice a life for prestige (tons of Advanced Placement classes) and it didn't seem to really make a practical difference, unless going to college at all is a practical difference to you, everyone went to state schools, maybe one went to Ivy League. The main distinction was that it was a bad school district, non-designated students had almost no expectations, which is why there was a separation at all. The "good schools" in the bad district had Tag and Honors programs. I think it created some solidarity, where philisters would have ostracized the people making an attempt at coursework. The general concept can work in better school districts though.