Hacker News Reader

Comment by dkarl | Hacker News Reader

Teaching the smartest 5% of kids in a classroom is like surfing Hacker News. It might be fun and rewarding, but it isn't "real" work. It isn't part of the job description, it isn't what teachers are paid for, and it doesn't affect their performance metrics. Smart kids just have to be satisfied with the lectures and assignments that are designed for the marginal kids.

Even in an AP class, the top few kids in the class are guaranteed 5s. The teacher will focus effort on the kids who are hovering around the 2/3 boundary.

View on HN

Does this fact not strike you as sad? According to http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1653653,00.... if we are generous in our estimate of how much is spent on gifted programs, we spend 10 times as much to educate the mentally retarded as the gifted. Yet which group poses greater potential returns for society?

Gifted kids should not have trouble with school. Yet they drop out at the same rate as everyone else. And frequently are pressured to under perform. I consider this a tragedy.

The question should not be who gives greater returns to society but the allocation based on need.

It is probable that children with learning disabilities will always need more care (and hence money). I think the real issue is that we are falling short of stimulating our brightest children. That doesn't justify taking from children with specific needs for support.

The question should not be who gives greater returns to society but the allocation based on need.

Is it possible to acknowledge that all learners need fitting education?

> It is probable that children with learning disabilities will always need more care (and hence money). I think the real issue is that we are falling short of stimulating our brightest children. That doesn't justify taking from children with specific needs for support.

Okay - so where are you going to get the money?

In the short term, the size of the pie is fixed. In the long term, it isn't.

It may be that spending a greater percentage of resources on "smart kids" will produce enough more wealth that there will be more resources to spend on "not so smart" kids. Or not.

This isn't a question that can be answered with platitudes.

> The question should not be who gives greater returns to society but the allocation based on need.

That kind of impractical, feel-good sloganising stifles democracy.

How are people supposed to respond? They know that generally people takes a more hard headed approach to issues that directly effect them and the sloganiser is probably being hypocritical. But complaining about the hypocrisy is to derail the discussion; switching from how resources are alocated within education to quarrelling about how one participant organises his private life ruins the debate.

One might try to argue in a loop, saying that allocation based on talent will expand the economy eventally allowing more needs to be met. But the slogan is a feel good slogan. If you are backed into arguing against a feel-good slogan you have to take the role of feel-bad guy in the discussion and that really does feel bad because you are pretty damn sure it is just a slogan: the other guy is probably pretty ruthless in his private life (just look at his debating tactics).

But why have this discussion at all? If you have a job and a family you don't actually have time to waste on a "from each according to his ability, to each according to he need" neo-Marxist bun fight. You want to have a adult discussion about educational priorities. So when some-one kicks off the bunfight with "allocation based on need." you are effectively disenfranchised.

The obvious solution is to simply allow gifted children to advance more quickly, which would be the natural course of things. Of course, the institutional and political hurdles are considerable.

This doesn't sound natural to me. "Gifted" often means gifted in logic, reasoning, reading and writing. It does not mean gifted socially or athletically. Children develop a ton each year. Advancing a child one year ahead puts them at a great disadvantage socially and athletically. It encourages them to be even more one-dimensional than they already are, rather than encouraging them to excel at many things--in fact to consider that it's ok to choose what to excel at, to try new things and fail, to find their own personality.

I think have ceilings is unfortunate (better to have a much harder AP where even the smart kids who work really hard are challenged by the exams, too). Nonetheless, I would think hard about pushing someone through school faster than normal. It's great if children can get through homework fast (and correctly)--they can learn good habits about free time and have fun. They can even start learning about how to choose what work to do, how to not stress out about grades and external expectations, how to find their own meaning, how to find satisfaction, how to tell the difference between hard work and busy work, and not give up. I learned a lot of this by playing sports (sports psychology is wicked awesome character development).

Learning math versus more math just seems like squabbling over details to me. For a very small number of kids it might be the right choice. Everyone's different, though.

There is another approach to learning math for the brightest learners, but they usually have to find that approach outside the standard school curriculum.

http://www.artofproblemsolving.com/Resources/AoPS_R_A_Calcul...

What this author writes about is what the supplementary math classes I teach to elementary-age students are all about.

"Smart kids just have to be satisfied with the lectures and assignments that are designed for the marginal kids."

No, fuck that.

Everything else that can be said on this is mere commentary.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com