6 ms·

“These students are going to produce an outsized portion of the major technological, medical, mathematical, scientific, economic advances of the next generation

by nwenzel 12y ago

“These students are going to produce an outsized portion of the major technological, medical, mathematical, scientific, economic advances of the next generation,” When I was In school, there was a GATE program (gifted and talented education ???). But I think it was meant to target the top 10% or 20% of students. But when you think about where the really big advances for civilization will come from, maybe there should be a focus on the top 1% or 2%. That's sort of the opposite of public school today. I suppose instead of No Child Left Behind, it's No Child Left Unchallenged.

jhspaybar 12y ago
I too was in GATE, and I think it's still around. However, where I live now, there actually is a program for the top 1% and they have their own dedicated school. It may not be common, but this focus on the very top is happening in some places at least.
Qworg 12y ago
The newest ways of thinking about schools as learning communities have moved from the "pyramid of intervention" or how to save failing students, to a more holistic "diamond" that covers both ends of the spectrum. While not super common AFAIK, it is moving.
jacobolus 12y ago
Plenty of children struggle in school and go on to do amazing things afterward, and plenty of “child geniuses” are lavished with attention and go on to do nothing notable. The purpose of a school should be to encourage all students to flourish, not to pick the ones who will “advance civilization” at age 5.
- pbhjpbhj 12y ago
  So, just ignore the potential benefit to society of identifying and using the brains of those who are "gifted"? We don't have to ditch the program of public schooling in order to do so. Arguably by not challenging those at the top end of the academic achievement spectrum one is not "encourag[ing] all students to flourish".
- netcan 12y ago
  This is a bit of a straw-man. No one is suggesting teaching just the top 1% and leaving the rest to fend for themselves. Just putting them in a separate class for a few hour a week so they can be with other smart kids and be challenged. The bottom 10-20% in every subject could probably use something similar.
glenra 12y ago
California had a grade-school program in the 1970s called MGM - "Mentally Gifted Minors" - which focused on the top 2% (IQ 132+). It was cool, but IIRC at my school it basically replaced a single class period per week - I think it was taught by one part-time teacher who rotated between different schools on different days, trying to keep kids intellectually engaged and relieve them from the most tedious stuff they would otherwise have to suffer through. These new tools (or Khan Academy, or even the self-paced books that homeschoolers used to use) would probably allow kids to make a lot more progress were they so inclined.
- zach 12y ago
  The Los Angeles school district has run a program since at least the early 80s which, I kid you not, focuses on the top 0.1% in "intellectual giftedness". I attended this program in elementary school and met the most interesting people I knew before going to college. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highly_Gifted_Magnet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highly_Gifted_Magnet

by nwenzel 12y ago

jhspaybar 12y ago

I too was in GATE, and I think it's still around. However, where I live now, there actually is a program for the top 1% and they have their own dedicated school. It may not be common, but this focus on the very top is happening in some places at least.

Qworg 12y ago

The newest ways of thinking about schools as learning communities have moved from the "pyramid of intervention" or how to save failing students, to a more holistic "diamond" that covers both ends of the spectrum. While not super common AFAIK, it is moving.

jacobolus 12y ago

Plenty of children struggle in school and go on to do amazing things afterward, and plenty of “child geniuses” are lavished with attention and go on to do nothing notable. The purpose of a school should be to encourage all students to flourish, not to pick the ones who will “advance civilization” at age 5.

pbhjpbhj 12y ago
So, just ignore the potential benefit to society of identifying and using the brains of those who are "gifted"? We don't have to ditch the program of public schooling in order to do so. Arguably by not challenging those at the top end of the academic achievement spectrum one is not "encourag[ing] all students to flourish".
netcan 12y ago
This is a bit of a straw-man. No one is suggesting teaching just the top 1% and leaving the rest to fend for themselves. Just putting them in a separate class for a few hour a week so they can be with other smart kids and be challenged. The bottom 10-20% in every subject could probably use something similar.

glenra 12y ago

California had a grade-school program in the 1970s called MGM - "Mentally Gifted Minors" - which focused on the top 2% (IQ 132+). It was cool, but IIRC at my school it basically replaced a single class period per week - I think it was taught by one part-time teacher who rotated between different schools on different days, trying to keep kids intellectually engaged and relieve them from the most tedious stuff they would otherwise have to suffer through. These new tools (or Khan Academy, or even the self-paced books that homeschoolers used to use) would probably allow kids to make a lot more progress were they so inclined.

zach 12y ago
The Los Angeles school district has run a program since at least the early 80s which, I kid you not, focuses on the top 0.1% in "intellectual giftedness". I attended this program in elementary school and met the most interesting people I knew before going to college. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highly_Gifted_Magnet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highly_Gifted_Magnet