3 ms·

I was in one of these programs and here's how it worked. We all went into the cafeteria around 3rd grade and took a test like the SAT. Then we were evaluated in

I was in one of these programs and here's how it worked. We all went into the cafeteria around 3rd grade and took a test like the SAT. Then we were evaluated individually in areas of math and pattern recognition. Those who scored the highest got out of Reading every week and instead went to an enrichment class where we learned miscellaneous "enriching" things like Shakespeare, architecture, programming, history of art etc. The problem with this model is twofold: 1. First it ostracizes the ones in that enrichment class, and demotivates children left behind. It also causes rifts and resentment among friend groups. Every day the other children see Sam and Sally leave class and go to a "special kid room", and this turns into jealousy and bullying. The kids in the enrichment class feel bad for being there, and the kids not in the enrichment class feel bad for not being there. We learned a whole lot, but I think this model could have been implemented such that we could still have learned those things without the associated social costs. 2. It's not a great selection mechanism. For example, they passed over some of my friends who, in my experience, are way smarter than me. Why? Well one had slight dyslexia, but he was a math genius. Another is a music and art genius, but she wasn't great at numbers. So we have people who would have benefitted from these programs, arguably both have a very high IQ, and yet this whole process left them feeling "less than". They had to sit in boring, sad reading class while us "enrichment" kids were putting on a production of Macbeth. If that's the kind of thing we were doing, why wasn't my artist friend invited? Because she couldn't do algebra in 3rd grade? So if there's so much social pressure, resentment, bullying, and the selection method isn't even that great anyway.... then what are these programs for? Can't we come up with a better model that enriches all kids? Instead of asking some magic sorting hat and trusting it's selecting the best students? Anyway, that was my experience decades ago... maybe things are different now. Obviously I have no idea what's going on with 3rd grade social dynamics these days.

thegrimmest 5y ago
It certainly seems like the program you attended was poorly implemented. I was sent to a gifted program full time with other gifted peers collected from around the region. I was still often ahead of the class, and couldn't imagine how miserable I would have been if I was forced to learn at a regular pace. Yes I agree we should be wary of setting up Lord of the Flies in our schools, but that doesn't mean that we should ignore the existence of children like Bluejay[1]. > Can't we come up with a better model that enriches all kids? I think the basic answer is "no". Past a certain pace/complexity many children will simply be unable to keep up and retain information. We should strive to rid ourselves of the modern delusion that since everyone is equal morally, they must all be equally capable and have equal potential. 1. https://www.cbsnews.com/video/bluejay/ https://www.cbsnews.com/video/bluejay/
- ModernMech 5y ago
  I don't mean to say we should enrich all kids in the same way though. I mean we should enrich them along axes that are important to them or interest them. Having enrichment and non-enrichment programs is only really one step removed from saying everyone is equal. You're now drawing a distinction, but now we need to wonder: why this distinction in particular, and is it really distinguishing the way we think? For instance, why aren't we putting all the kids into a room and testing their artistic aptitude, and funneling the kids who are the best artists into elite art programs to foster that ability? Why were IQ tests the only tool used to distinguish students? My wife's school had various different "academies" with disciplined focus areas -- arts, music, sports, etc. - which sound like a good way to do things. I guess my general point is that all children deserve enrichment, not just the high IQ ones. And even if the high IQ children are more needing or deserving of this enrichment, the methods I've experienced used to make the determination as to who is of high IQ are heavily flawed, although my experience is out of date.
  - thegrimmest 5y ago
    > funneling [sic] the kids who are the best artists into elite art programs to foster that ability The city I live in has several such schools and does exactly that, so I agree. > all children deserve enrichment This seems almost like a contradiction in terms. If all children get enrichment then surely it stops being enrichment.
paulpauper 5y ago
>2. It's not a great selection mechanism. For example, they passed over some of my friends who, in my experience, are way smarter than me. Why? Well one had slight dyslexia, but he was a math genius. Another is a music and art genius, but she wasn't great at numbers. So we have people who would have benefitted from these programs, arguably both have a very high IQ, and yet this whole process left them feeling "less than". They had to sit in boring, sad reading class while us "enrichment" kids were putting on a production of Macbeth. If that's the kind of thing we were doing, why wasn't my artist friend invited? Because she couldn't do algebra in 3rd grade? These are exceptions. Skills tend to be highly correlated at both the low and high end: people good at math also tend to be good at reading/writing. Also, many gifted programs may only focus on a single subject or are individualized, such as being accelerated in math but grade level at reading. >1. First it ostracizes the ones in that enrichment class, and demotivates children left behind. It also causes rifts and resentment among friend groups. Every day the other children see Sam and Sally leave class and go to a "special kid room", and this turns into jealousy and bullying. The kids in the enrichment class feel bad for being there, and the kids not in the enrichment class feel bad for not being there. We learned a whole lot, but I think this model could have been implemented such that we could still have learned those things without the associated social costs. Welcome to the real world. This is what life is like. Life is not fair. Why do Google employees earn more than Amazon warehouse workers.

thegrimmest 5y ago

It certainly seems like the program you attended was poorly implemented. I was sent to a gifted program full time with other gifted peers collected from around the region. I was still often ahead of the class, and couldn't imagine how miserable I would have been if I was forced to learn at a regular pace. Yes I agree we should be wary of setting up Lord of the Flies in our schools, but that doesn't mean that we should ignore the existence of children like Bluejay[1]. > Can't we come up with a better model that enriches all kids? I think the basic answer is "no". Past a certain pace/complexity many children will simply be unable to keep up and retain information. We should strive to rid ourselves of the modern delusion that since everyone is equal morally, they must all be equally capable and have equal potential. 1. https://www.cbsnews.com/video/bluejay/ https://www.cbsnews.com/video/bluejay/

ModernMech 5y ago
I don't mean to say we should enrich all kids in the same way though. I mean we should enrich them along axes that are important to them or interest them. Having enrichment and non-enrichment programs is only really one step removed from saying everyone is equal. You're now drawing a distinction, but now we need to wonder: why this distinction in particular, and is it really distinguishing the way we think? For instance, why aren't we putting all the kids into a room and testing their artistic aptitude, and funneling the kids who are the best artists into elite art programs to foster that ability? Why were IQ tests the only tool used to distinguish students? My wife's school had various different "academies" with disciplined focus areas -- arts, music, sports, etc. - which sound like a good way to do things. I guess my general point is that all children deserve enrichment, not just the high IQ ones. And even if the high IQ children are more needing or deserving of this enrichment, the methods I've experienced used to make the determination as to who is of high IQ are heavily flawed, although my experience is out of date.
- thegrimmest 5y ago
  > funneling [sic] the kids who are the best artists into elite art programs to foster that ability The city I live in has several such schools and does exactly that, so I agree. > all children deserve enrichment This seems almost like a contradiction in terms. If all children get enrichment then surely it stops being enrichment.

paulpauper 5y ago

>2. It's not a great selection mechanism. For example, they passed over some of my friends who, in my experience, are way smarter than me. Why? Well one had slight dyslexia, but he was a math genius. Another is a music and art genius, but she wasn't great at numbers. So we have people who would have benefitted from these programs, arguably both have a very high IQ, and yet this whole process left them feeling "less than". They had to sit in boring, sad reading class while us "enrichment" kids were putting on a production of Macbeth. If that's the kind of thing we were doing, why wasn't my artist friend invited? Because she couldn't do algebra in 3rd grade? These are exceptions. Skills tend to be highly correlated at both the low and high end: people good at math also tend to be good at reading/writing. Also, many gifted programs may only focus on a single subject or are individualized, such as being accelerated in math but grade level at reading. >1. First it ostracizes the ones in that enrichment class, and demotivates children left behind. It also causes rifts and resentment among friend groups. Every day the other children see Sam and Sally leave class and go to a "special kid room", and this turns into jealousy and bullying. The kids in the enrichment class feel bad for being there, and the kids not in the enrichment class feel bad for not being there. We learned a whole lot, but I think this model could have been implemented such that we could still have learned those things without the associated social costs. Welcome to the real world. This is what life is like. Life is not fair. Why do Google employees earn more than Amazon warehouse workers.