6 ms·

Not surprising that the kid of two extremely successful and intelligent parents -- at least technically and academically -- is suffocated by the pacing of publi

Not surprising that the kid of two extremely successful and intelligent parents -- at least technically and academically -- is suffocated by the pacing of public schooling. It's supposed to accommodate the needs of the general population and its standard deviations of nurture and nature. I wonder if this will become a more common pattern for the cognitive elite.

ido 4y ago
It’s not about the cognitive elite. The mass-education public school system is designed for an average with very little deviation that doesn’t actually fit that many pupils - it’s not a single int stat like in d&d, kids have different capabilities & interests and aiming for some sort of generalized lowest common denominator is going to be a bad experience for pretty much everyone. The only solution IMO is the expensive one - more individualized curricula, smaller classes, more personal attention from the teacher to the pupil and less focus on standardized tests and grades.
- koonsolo 4y ago
  There is another way, and I know they sometimes use it in Belgium: let the smarter kids help out the ones that still struggle with the material. That way they learn how to properly explain things, teach others. Maybe they don't see more material than the other kids, but they sure learn other usefull skills.
  - chongli 4y ago
    That’s not great. The smartest kids could be learning calculus in elementary school. Having them teach arithmetic to their struggling peers is just going to add frustration onto boredom. It also turns out that the smartest kids don’t even need that much attention. They just need access to resources and challenging material and a supervisor to help them set and achieve goals. It really doesn’t cost much to society to provide gifted kids with what they need and at the same time free teachers up to spend more time with those who need it. I think we all know the main reason we as a society don’t fund gifted and talented education: spite. Parents of average kids hold a special animosity toward gifted kids for no other reason than envy. They would be far better off finding ways to get the most problematic and disruptive kids out of their children’s classrooms but that doesn’t satisfy people the way seeing a gifted program close does.
    - 8f2ab37a-ed6c 4y ago
      I'm guessing there's a big ick factor to separating kids into "smarter" and "not that smart" groups. It feels inequitable, undemocratic, it goes against the commonly accepted blank slate hypothesis. People will say that if kids show different outcomes, the teachers just haven't tried hard enough, or that the state hasn't spent enough on them.
      - koonsolo 4y ago
        I'm willing to bet most gifted kids are born in the first half of the year, and most not so smart ones in the second half. Same in sports by the way: most "gifted" players are born at the start of the year: https://www.google.com/amp/s/fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-athletes-birthdays-affect-who-goes-pro-and-who-becomes-a-star/amp/ https://www.google.com/amp/s/fivethirtyeight.com/features/wh... Conclusion: at young ages, you should be very careful what you call "gifted" when you place kids with almost 1 year difference in the same group.
        wooque 4y ago
        Pure bullshit, I was top 1% in school and I was born in December
        koonsolo 4y ago
        A single case doesn't invalidate the statistics of a larger group. You being top 1% should know that.
        YesWeWill 4y ago
        dekleinewolf 4y ago
        My n=1 is that I was always both the youngest and the smartest.
        4y ago
- jay_kyburz 4y ago
  I've said it before, but I think software could do a lot to customize curriculum for students without disrupting the the traditional classroom too much. The kids could be tested with games, then presented new stuff or roll back to some older stuff based on how well they are progressing.
  - dekleinewolf 4y ago
    In my country many many schools switch to tablet based math lessons that adjust based on the students level.
- froh 4y ago
  the solution actually is an inexpensive one: provide age appropriate self learning materials and make the teachers coaches in navigating those. Montessori schools work like that and we have a public school using that to accommodate both very quick and very slow learners and all those in between. the trick is that most students spend two years in that class, slow learners stay for three and the quick kids move on after just one year. individualized learning and mixed age groups. cheap and works like a charm.
xattt 4y ago
> I wonder if this will become a more common pattern for the cognitive elite. In Canada, French immersion is an option in public schools starting from kindergarten. Personally, I think it’s a good proxy for sorting classrooms where parents care versus English-only classrooms where the parents seem less involved. I’ve heard comments from parents who deliberately avoided French immersion for various reasons but these often stemmed from a lack of a growth mindset (it’s confusing for my child, I won’t be able to help them with homework, etc.). This obviously has implications about how kids conduct themselves beyond their home.

ido 4y ago

It’s not about the cognitive elite. The mass-education public school system is designed for an average with very little deviation that doesn’t actually fit that many pupils - it’s not a single int stat like in d&d, kids have different capabilities & interests and aiming for some sort of generalized lowest common denominator is going to be a bad experience for pretty much everyone. The only solution IMO is the expensive one - more individualized curricula, smaller classes, more personal attention from the teacher to the pupil and less focus on standardized tests and grades.

koonsolo 4y ago
There is another way, and I know they sometimes use it in Belgium: let the smarter kids help out the ones that still struggle with the material. That way they learn how to properly explain things, teach others. Maybe they don't see more material than the other kids, but they sure learn other usefull skills.
- chongli 4y ago
  That’s not great. The smartest kids could be learning calculus in elementary school. Having them teach arithmetic to their struggling peers is just going to add frustration onto boredom. It also turns out that the smartest kids don’t even need that much attention. They just need access to resources and challenging material and a supervisor to help them set and achieve goals. It really doesn’t cost much to society to provide gifted kids with what they need and at the same time free teachers up to spend more time with those who need it. I think we all know the main reason we as a society don’t fund gifted and talented education: spite. Parents of average kids hold a special animosity toward gifted kids for no other reason than envy. They would be far better off finding ways to get the most problematic and disruptive kids out of their children’s classrooms but that doesn’t satisfy people the way seeing a gifted program close does.
  - 8f2ab37a-ed6c 4y ago
    I'm guessing there's a big ick factor to separating kids into "smarter" and "not that smart" groups. It feels inequitable, undemocratic, it goes against the commonly accepted blank slate hypothesis. People will say that if kids show different outcomes, the teachers just haven't tried hard enough, or that the state hasn't spent enough on them.
    - koonsolo 4y ago
      I'm willing to bet most gifted kids are born in the first half of the year, and most not so smart ones in the second half. Same in sports by the way: most "gifted" players are born at the start of the year: https://www.google.com/amp/s/fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-athletes-birthdays-affect-who-goes-pro-and-who-becomes-a-star/amp/ https://www.google.com/amp/s/fivethirtyeight.com/features/wh... Conclusion: at young ages, you should be very careful what you call "gifted" when you place kids with almost 1 year difference in the same group.
      - wooque 4y ago
        Pure bullshit, I was top 1% in school and I was born in December
        koonsolo 4y ago
        A single case doesn't invalidate the statistics of a larger group. You being top 1% should know that.
        YesWeWill 4y ago
      - dekleinewolf 4y ago
        My n=1 is that I was always both the youngest and the smartest.
      - 4y ago
jay_kyburz 4y ago
I've said it before, but I think software could do a lot to customize curriculum for students without disrupting the the traditional classroom too much. The kids could be tested with games, then presented new stuff or roll back to some older stuff based on how well they are progressing.
- dekleinewolf 4y ago
  In my country many many schools switch to tablet based math lessons that adjust based on the students level.
froh 4y ago
the solution actually is an inexpensive one: provide age appropriate self learning materials and make the teachers coaches in navigating those. Montessori schools work like that and we have a public school using that to accommodate both very quick and very slow learners and all those in between. the trick is that most students spend two years in that class, slow learners stay for three and the quick kids move on after just one year. individualized learning and mixed age groups. cheap and works like a charm.

xattt 4y ago

> I wonder if this will become a more common pattern for the cognitive elite. In Canada, French immersion is an option in public schools starting from kindergarten. Personally, I think it’s a good proxy for sorting classrooms where parents care versus English-only classrooms where the parents seem less involved. I’ve heard comments from parents who deliberately avoided French immersion for various reasons but these often stemmed from a lack of a growth mindset (it’s confusing for my child, I won’t be able to help them with homework, etc.). This obviously has implications about how kids conduct themselves beyond their home.