4 ms·

Leaving aside whatever "gifted" means, why bring additional challenges to people who are ahead of the curriculum? It frees them up to explore being people. Havi

by onoj 17y ago

Leaving aside whatever "gifted" means, why bring additional challenges to people who are ahead of the curriculum? It frees them up to explore being people. Having the freedom to create your own challenges is much more important than some misguided attempt by control freaks to monopolize your time.

blahedo 17y ago
Because these students may be learning qualitatively differently, meaning that leaving them in middle-road classes will not teach them as effectively. And more importantly, because leaving gifted kids in unchallenging classes often causes them to burn out and get turned off on school and learning entirely. I've seen it happen, and it's so sad.
gommm 17y ago
I would agree with you if the children who were ahead of the curriculum could spend the time in class reading or doing other useful activities. As it is, most of the time, they just have to sit and pretend to be interested while following a lesson about things that they already know...
- jlees 17y ago
  At my middle school I would help the teacher out by working with the slower students on their spelling or maths. I could vaguely imagine this working on more complicated topics - teaching stuff is a great way to cement your knowledge - but only to a limited extent.
techiferous 17y ago
The ideal situation is to be faced with a challenge that is slightly harder than your current skill level. Not only is this great for learning, it is a very enjoyable experience. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_%28psychology%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_%28psychology%29
Kadin 17y ago
> It frees them up to explore being people. This was not my experience. Granted, it was a while ago, and I'm not sure I'd call myself "gifted," but being ahead of the rest of the class certainly didn't get you any time to do interesting things -- it got you a pile of busywork and angry glances from the teacher for being such a pain in the ass. I doubt things have changed much; if anything, due to increased student:teacher ratios, I suspect they've gotten worse. I don't have any kids but if I did, I'd be far more concerned about a particularly bright one being wrecked by public school than I would a special-needs one who lagged the rest of the class.
- onoj 17y ago
  I guess my point was more along the lines that "gifted" is a very undefined quantity and in my experience people who excel at class work are average in life. Also that given our education system, the best and brightest do not become teachers, thus any sort of "gifted" program is going to be for muppets by muppets. Given it is pretty much that already the news article has nothing to offer.
- CWuestefeld 17y ago
  due to increased student:teacher ratios, I suspect they've gotten worse Class size seems to be the single biggest concern related to education quality. However, it's not entirely clear that smaller classes help; especially not that they help "normal" students (as opposed to those who are "at-risk"). It seems that other things being equal, this is can be a big help to those that need extra help, especially when they're not getting much support educationally at home. But it doesn't seem to have the same effect on kids that are doing OK anyway. Also, having smaller classes means having more teachers. And that means either offering much higher salaries or settling for less-good teachers. The latter is probably not helpful, and higher salaries may cost money that could deliver greater results when invested in other ways. Simply assuming that your kids will do better if the classes are smaller is erroneous. Read a bit more here: http://www.edweek.org/rc/issues/class-size/ http://www.edweek.org/rc/issues/class-size/
InclinedPlane 17y ago
That's not how things work out in practice. More common is that gifted students get annoyed at having to do unchallenging busywork and become annoyed at the whole system. When school no longer becomes worthwhile or engaging (at either the top or the bottom of the spectrum) then it becomes little more than a prison. Being ahead of the curve in public schools doesn't mean that you get to skip out on classes, you have no greater free time than any of the kids struggling with the material (except perhaps it takes you less time to do homework). Best case scenario is that unchallenged gifted students take advantage of the most advanced classes available and learn on their own at home. Worst case scenario is that they become jaded and disenchanted with school and learning, stop doing school work because it's beneath their capability, and act out in worse ways. Lucky for me, some time around the 8th grade or so I turned from the second type of student (falling behind, increasingly disengaged) to the first type (being recognized as one of a handful of top students in my senior class). I was lucky enough to attend an excellent public high-school with good teachers and lots of advanced classes, if those classes and teachers would not have been available to me I don't know for sure what I would have done.

by onoj 17y ago

blahedo 17y ago

Because these students may be learning qualitatively differently, meaning that leaving them in middle-road classes will not teach them as effectively. And more importantly, because leaving gifted kids in unchallenging classes often causes them to burn out and get turned off on school and learning entirely. I've seen it happen, and it's so sad.

gommm 17y ago

I would agree with you if the children who were ahead of the curriculum could spend the time in class reading or doing other useful activities. As it is, most of the time, they just have to sit and pretend to be interested while following a lesson about things that they already know...

jlees 17y ago
At my middle school I would help the teacher out by working with the slower students on their spelling or maths. I could vaguely imagine this working on more complicated topics - teaching stuff is a great way to cement your knowledge - but only to a limited extent.

techiferous 17y ago

The ideal situation is to be faced with a challenge that is slightly harder than your current skill level. Not only is this great for learning, it is a very enjoyable experience. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_%28psychology%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_%28psychology%29

Kadin 17y ago

> It frees them up to explore being people. This was not my experience. Granted, it was a while ago, and I'm not sure I'd call myself "gifted," but being ahead of the rest of the class certainly didn't get you any time to do interesting things -- it got you a pile of busywork and angry glances from the teacher for being such a pain in the ass. I doubt things have changed much; if anything, due to increased student:teacher ratios, I suspect they've gotten worse. I don't have any kids but if I did, I'd be far more concerned about a particularly bright one being wrecked by public school than I would a special-needs one who lagged the rest of the class.

onoj 17y ago
I guess my point was more along the lines that "gifted" is a very undefined quantity and in my experience people who excel at class work are average in life. Also that given our education system, the best and brightest do not become teachers, thus any sort of "gifted" program is going to be for muppets by muppets. Given it is pretty much that already the news article has nothing to offer.
CWuestefeld 17y ago
due to increased student:teacher ratios, I suspect they've gotten worse Class size seems to be the single biggest concern related to education quality. However, it's not entirely clear that smaller classes help; especially not that they help "normal" students (as opposed to those who are "at-risk"). It seems that other things being equal, this is can be a big help to those that need extra help, especially when they're not getting much support educationally at home. But it doesn't seem to have the same effect on kids that are doing OK anyway. Also, having smaller classes means having more teachers. And that means either offering much higher salaries or settling for less-good teachers. The latter is probably not helpful, and higher salaries may cost money that could deliver greater results when invested in other ways. Simply assuming that your kids will do better if the classes are smaller is erroneous. Read a bit more here: http://www.edweek.org/rc/issues/class-size/ http://www.edweek.org/rc/issues/class-size/

InclinedPlane 17y ago

That's not how things work out in practice. More common is that gifted students get annoyed at having to do unchallenging busywork and become annoyed at the whole system. When school no longer becomes worthwhile or engaging (at either the top or the bottom of the spectrum) then it becomes little more than a prison. Being ahead of the curve in public schools doesn't mean that you get to skip out on classes, you have no greater free time than any of the kids struggling with the material (except perhaps it takes you less time to do homework). Best case scenario is that unchallenged gifted students take advantage of the most advanced classes available and learn on their own at home. Worst case scenario is that they become jaded and disenchanted with school and learning, stop doing school work because it's beneath their capability, and act out in worse ways. Lucky for me, some time around the 8th grade or so I turned from the second type of student (falling behind, increasingly disengaged) to the first type (being recognized as one of a handful of top students in my senior class). I was lucky enough to attend an excellent public high-school with good teachers and lots of advanced classes, if those classes and teachers would not have been available to me I don't know for sure what I would have done.