4 ms·

from a social development standpoint it makes sense, a lot of "geniuses" had/could develop problems growing up with people emotionally/socially more mature, alt

by kwere 4y ago

from a social development standpoint it makes sense, a lot of "geniuses" had/could develop problems growing up with people emotionally/socially more mature, altough keeping gifted people with underperformers and lowering education level to keep them "afloat" is a disservice to both groups

nerpderp82 4y ago
People are not underperformers, you can't and shouldn't segment the population across some quantitative boundary. Each individual should learn at a difficulty gradient for them that is positive and engaging for each subject. For everyone this will be a different value. What you are describing is a form of damaging elitism.
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  People absolutely can and do underperform relative to a standard or mean. Perhaps they should also learn at an optimal rate for personal growth. This doesn't negate the statement above, and it certainly isn't an argument for grouping children together where they can't learn at a personally appropriate rate.
  - nerpderp82 4y ago
    Are you addressing the my statement relative to the GP? They are making the elitist assertion that the gifted kids should be separated from the chaff. Having been in gifted programs, I have not found the removal of "underperformers" to be anything other than classism.
    - s1artibartfast 4y ago
      I agree that gifted kids should be "separated from the chaff". I don't see how you reconcile your belief that students should go at their own pace with the idea that students should not be separated. Lack of separation forces all students to progress at the same rate, either high or low. Having been in gifted tracks and standard tracks, I saw a clear difference in the capabilities of students and coursework. If I had been forced to stay in the standard track, I would prefer to drop out. Last, I reject your idea that no student can underperform. At best it is a meaningless empty statement. At worst it is a delusional denial that any differences or lines of comparison exist. Nobody is talented, untalented, tall, short, fast, slow. They just are what they are, unique and incomparable. There is absolutely a class component to gifted programs, but the vast majority of the time this results from the additional support and nurturing upper class parents give their children. I don't think egalitarianism is a sufficient rationale for stifling and handicapping the progress of those children.
      - nerpderp82 4y ago
        > At best it is a meaningless empty statement. At worst it is a delusional denial that any differences or lines of comparison exist. Nobody is talented, untalented, tall, short, fast, slow. They just are what they are, unique and incomparable. Disingenuous hot take, you are putting words in my mouth. Done.
        s1artibartfast 4y ago
        I gave a range of possibilities and my genuine opinion on them. I'm putting words in my mouth, not yours. I'm not the one boldly claiming it is impossible for students to underperform.
- kwere 4y ago
  public education is tailored to the class-level and school-year not individual performance, using underperformer is correct and they should be grouped by level of teachability and put on separate lanes than other students while obviously limiting self-limiting beliefs / segregation factors (like having a mixed classes of physical education or projects). I radically believe one of the most damaging factor for education outcomes is (lack of) family support, most people dont have it in their most important formative years, so the state should put all highschool kids in oncampus communities for the 5 day week and let them use only earned cash (also by remunerating grades), while seeing family on weekend and vacations (vacation time should be connected to academic output)
r3trohack3r 4y ago
All children of the same age aren't equally emotionally/socially developed. By your own argument we shouldn't be bucketing by age but by emotional/social development. Bucketing kids who are emotionally/socially more mature than their peers into the same cohort is is a disservice to both groups. Take any vertical you want and you'll find the same argument. The progression by age seems to be approximately correct when you average development across all verticals across an age group when you look at it from a high level, but once you zoom in it's an absolute mess.

by kwere 4y ago

nerpderp82 4y ago

People are not underperformers, you can't and shouldn't segment the population across some quantitative boundary. Each individual should learn at a difficulty gradient for them that is positive and engaging for each subject. For everyone this will be a different value. What you are describing is a form of damaging elitism.

s1artibartfast 4y ago
People absolutely can and do underperform relative to a standard or mean. Perhaps they should also learn at an optimal rate for personal growth. This doesn't negate the statement above, and it certainly isn't an argument for grouping children together where they can't learn at a personally appropriate rate.
- nerpderp82 4y ago
  Are you addressing the my statement relative to the GP? They are making the elitist assertion that the gifted kids should be separated from the chaff. Having been in gifted programs, I have not found the removal of "underperformers" to be anything other than classism.
  - s1artibartfast 4y ago
    I agree that gifted kids should be "separated from the chaff". I don't see how you reconcile your belief that students should go at their own pace with the idea that students should not be separated. Lack of separation forces all students to progress at the same rate, either high or low. Having been in gifted tracks and standard tracks, I saw a clear difference in the capabilities of students and coursework. If I had been forced to stay in the standard track, I would prefer to drop out. Last, I reject your idea that no student can underperform. At best it is a meaningless empty statement. At worst it is a delusional denial that any differences or lines of comparison exist. Nobody is talented, untalented, tall, short, fast, slow. They just are what they are, unique and incomparable. There is absolutely a class component to gifted programs, but the vast majority of the time this results from the additional support and nurturing upper class parents give their children. I don't think egalitarianism is a sufficient rationale for stifling and handicapping the progress of those children.
    - nerpderp82 4y ago
      > At best it is a meaningless empty statement. At worst it is a delusional denial that any differences or lines of comparison exist. Nobody is talented, untalented, tall, short, fast, slow. They just are what they are, unique and incomparable. Disingenuous hot take, you are putting words in my mouth. Done.
      - s1artibartfast 4y ago
        I gave a range of possibilities and my genuine opinion on them. I'm putting words in my mouth, not yours. I'm not the one boldly claiming it is impossible for students to underperform.
kwere 4y ago
public education is tailored to the class-level and school-year not individual performance, using underperformer is correct and they should be grouped by level of teachability and put on separate lanes than other students while obviously limiting self-limiting beliefs / segregation factors (like having a mixed classes of physical education or projects). I radically believe one of the most damaging factor for education outcomes is (lack of) family support, most people dont have it in their most important formative years, so the state should put all highschool kids in oncampus communities for the 5 day week and let them use only earned cash (also by remunerating grades), while seeing family on weekend and vacations (vacation time should be connected to academic output)

r3trohack3r 4y ago

All children of the same age aren't equally emotionally/socially developed. By your own argument we shouldn't be bucketing by age but by emotional/social development. Bucketing kids who are emotionally/socially more mature than their peers into the same cohort is is a disservice to both groups. Take any vertical you want and you'll find the same argument. The progression by age seems to be approximately correct when you average development across all verticals across an age group when you look at it from a high level, but once you zoom in it's an absolute mess.