4 ms·

We had this on a school level. I am from different country and educational system, but have seen the pattern for several years as I was attending. After first

by a-saleh 12y ago

We had this on a school level. I am from different country and educational system, but have seen the pattern for several years as I was attending. After first 4 years of school, all the classmates were split according to some equivalent of GPA. Because we had 4 classes in a year (class as a group of students sharing a room and a schedule), it resulted in one full of very good students, two more or less mixed and one class of students that were barely passing from year to year. I don't think it helped.

xaa 12y ago
In many US schools, there is a similar system: gifted programs (in elementary), pre-AP (middle school), and AP (high school) segregate the "gifted" kids from the rest. I think it actually helps the gifted students. A lot. The best teachers want to teach in the "gifted" track, because there is a lot more participation and interest, and they can move faster because they don't have to teach to the lowest common denominator. Unfortunately, while every student can learn, they cannot all learn at the same rate. This is why "no child left behind"-like strategies fail: not all students are equal, and a focus on those who are behind inevitably penalizes those who are ahead. While good teachers can indeed bring students who are behind further back to parity, it is unfair to lump the burden of environmental and biological differences between students onto teachers, who have to bring them all to a pre-determined standard. Ultimately, school policy has to acknowledge that it is of the highest priority to thoroughly educate the gifted students, who will become society's future leaders and knowledge workers. As a liberal who is concerned about income inequality, it pains me to admit these things, but that's the way it is.
jimmaswell 12y ago
You get a better ROI on the good students. They ended up with a better education at the end not being dragged down by apathetic/disruptive/clueless classmates while the less gifted students weren't made to speed through material beyond their level. Why don't you think it helped?

by a-saleh 12y ago

xaa 12y ago

In many US schools, there is a similar system: gifted programs (in elementary), pre-AP (middle school), and AP (high school) segregate the "gifted" kids from the rest. I think it actually helps the gifted students. A lot. The best teachers want to teach in the "gifted" track, because there is a lot more participation and interest, and they can move faster because they don't have to teach to the lowest common denominator. Unfortunately, while every student can learn, they cannot all learn at the same rate. This is why "no child left behind"-like strategies fail: not all students are equal, and a focus on those who are behind inevitably penalizes those who are ahead. While good teachers can indeed bring students who are behind further back to parity, it is unfair to lump the burden of environmental and biological differences between students onto teachers, who have to bring them all to a pre-determined standard. Ultimately, school policy has to acknowledge that it is of the highest priority to thoroughly educate the gifted students, who will become society's future leaders and knowledge workers. As a liberal who is concerned about income inequality, it pains me to admit these things, but that's the way it is.

jimmaswell 12y ago

You get a better ROI on the good students. They ended up with a better education at the end not being dragged down by apathetic/disruptive/clueless classmates while the less gifted students weren't made to speed through material beyond their level. Why don't you think it helped?