4 ms·

I was trying to prompt the obviously necessary reflection on what you said. But I'll make it explicit, if irony is considered too snarky: Exposing more gifted

by corty 6y ago

I was trying to prompt the obviously necessary reflection on what you said. But I'll make it explicit, if irony is considered too snarky: Exposing more gifted children to less gifted ones might be beneficial in small doses, it isn't in general. One group will always be detrimental to the other: Because the more gifted children get bored, learn to minimax everything and to procrastinate because nothing really requires their full application and attention. Maybe you give them harder tasks, but seeing that in the presence of the less gifted children they can also get by with less work if they just play dumb, they will learn to adapt and play dumb. Tons of psychological problems like procrastination and impostor syndrome (that HN likes to complain about) are caused and worsened by these mechanisms. If you do the converse and do your teaching on a level appropriate for the more gifted children, the less gifted ones will be in over their heads. They won't learn most of the curriculum, but they will learn their inferiority and helplessness. They will also learn to hate the more gifted children, and seek an outlet through violent means if possible. I suppose a good part of the HN population has been on the receiving end of that one. If you need examples where coeducation is never done, look no further than the school's choir, orchestra or sports teams. If you aren't in the top group of abilities for those activities you are either not selected, or selected for the second team. With good reason.

lou1306 6y ago
> But I'll make it explicit, if irony is considered too snarky: Exposing more gifted children to less gifted ones might be beneficial in small doses, it isn't in general. One group will always be detrimental to the other I do see your point, but it's a matter of tradeoffs. Not exposing different children to each other may benefit the best ones (and maybe even the others, who knows), but may also foster a classist view of society. Similarly, we started coeducating male and female pupils because the previous system was seen as fostering a sexist view of society. > If you need examples where coeducation is never done, look no further than the school's choir, orchestra or sports teams. That actually strenghtens the point though, doesn't it? You can also have chess teams, science clubs, and other activities which cater to the best pupils, while keeping the current educational model.
- corty 6y ago
  Coeducation and joined competitions still aren't a thing in sports, even chess. It isn't a problem to separate, if there really is a difference imho. > That actually strenghtens the point though, doesn't it? You can also have chess teams, science clubs, and other activities which cater to the best pupils, while keeping the current educational model. No, it doesn't. If you really would go through with that, you are making the better pupils waste their time in regular boring classes with the same effects on them I've described, and then make them take more clubs in addition to the boring stuff. And it will be quite a lot of clubs, one for each subject basically. That wastes school resources as well as pupils' time. And it reinforces to the pupils that being smart is a curse that will make you waste extra time in school just to not be bored out of your scull watching the worse pupils scratch their heads over trivialities. If you want to do it right, you need alternative regular classes or alternative schools for better pupils.

by corty 6y ago

lou1306 6y ago

> But I'll make it explicit, if irony is considered too snarky: Exposing more gifted children to less gifted ones might be beneficial in small doses, it isn't in general. One group will always be detrimental to the other I do see your point, but it's a matter of tradeoffs. Not exposing different children to each other may benefit the best ones (and maybe even the others, who knows), but may also foster a classist view of society. Similarly, we started coeducating male and female pupils because the previous system was seen as fostering a sexist view of society. > If you need examples where coeducation is never done, look no further than the school's choir, orchestra or sports teams. That actually strenghtens the point though, doesn't it? You can also have chess teams, science clubs, and other activities which cater to the best pupils, while keeping the current educational model.

corty 6y ago
Coeducation and joined competitions still aren't a thing in sports, even chess. It isn't a problem to separate, if there really is a difference imho. > That actually strenghtens the point though, doesn't it? You can also have chess teams, science clubs, and other activities which cater to the best pupils, while keeping the current educational model. No, it doesn't. If you really would go through with that, you are making the better pupils waste their time in regular boring classes with the same effects on them I've described, and then make them take more clubs in addition to the boring stuff. And it will be quite a lot of clubs, one for each subject basically. That wastes school resources as well as pupils' time. And it reinforces to the pupils that being smart is a curse that will make you waste extra time in school just to not be bored out of your scull watching the worse pupils scratch their heads over trivialities. If you want to do it right, you need alternative regular classes or alternative schools for better pupils.