Failing Our Geniuses

saintlupus writes "Time has an interesting article about the failure of the US educational system to properly deal with gifted students. For example, up to ten times as much money is spent nationwide on educating 'developmentally disabled' students as gifted ones. Does No Child Left Behind mean that nobody can get ahead, either?"

Comments

of course

[networkBoy]

Does No Child Left Behind mean that nobody can get ahead, either? Yes.

Re:of course

[robgig1088]

Yeah that about sums it up. In our school district, they're pushing more regular students into our magnet schools (this is a Louisiana magnet school, mind you). Basically they're trying to level the playing field. Unfortunately, this means the AP students don't have as many higher-level classes to take because they have to cater to the regular-class students. If you ask me, High Schools should be like colleges, where they get to choose whether or not you're smart enough to attend. This sort of thing just annoys me to no end.

Re:of course

[Marxist Hacker 42]

This is new? Yes, of course no child left behind means nobody can get ahead- but it didn't start with no child left behind. EVERY person I know who tested with an IQ greater than 105 had this problem in high school, and to a lesser extent in grade school (but only because I went to a rural grade school with extremely small class sizes).

Re:of course

[ShieldW0lf]

They do this in high school here in Canada. Only the advanced classes count towards university qualifications though, so you generally find strong students take all advanced classes, and weak students take general classes.

I was in a pilot fast-track program when I was a child... completed grades 1, 2 and 3 in 2 years while mingled in amongst the grade 1s the first year and the grade 3's the next. I have to say, it's a hard thing to put a kid through when it comes to socializing... I lost a lot of blood on that schoolyard. They didn't continue the program.

Re:of course

[netruner]

The problems happen in a couple of ways:
1.) "My kid should be in the smart class" (whether they belong there or not)
2.) Claims of discrimination / creation of a caste system being unacceptable.

Remember, school board officials are elected and must bow to political pressure.

One of my mentors used to always tell me: "Culture is the hardest thing to change". Parents want they perceive to be the best for their kids whether it really is or not. They also (typically - no matter how many sob stories you hear) have a greater stake in them than the teachers that only see them for a few hours a day.

Would you trust someone at the local public school to put your kid on a path that will determine what opportunities will be available to them? As one of my college professors said: too many Einsteins are passed over because the teacher was looking for that one Gauss.

Re:of course

[UserChrisCanter4]

Your response is correct, but the Time article doesn't appear to address the reason. Most people are familiar with the phrase "No Child Left Behind," but don't actually understand how it works.

AYP (Adequate Yearly Progress) is a factor in the ranking of school systems. Specifically, it was designed to expose the fact that many school had masked the few poor performers with the majority of successful students.

What it effectively means is that all "sub-populations" (broken by ethnic groups, ESL/Limited English Proficiency, "at-risk," and low-income, among others) must demonstrate "adequate yearly progress." It's designed to even be a bit forgiving - the low-income group doesn't necessarily have to pass, they just have to have improved a reasonable amount from the year before. A subpopulation counts if it is 1% of the school population or 30 kids (IIRC).

If a school fails to meet AYP for two years in a row, they become a "school of choice." Parents may now choose to pull their students from that school and send them to another one, and the failing school will pay for transportation. I'm not sure how it works out in small, rural districts where a given high school is the only one in the district.

Once a school fails in AYP, kids start getting pulled. The kids who get pulled are the ones who have parents who care about education; that usually translates to the kids who do well in a school being pulled from it. You can see how much this would impact a school.

If a school fails to meet AYP for five years in a row, a radical restructuring is due; this generally means that large amounts of the staff need to be fired, or the school should be converted to a charter school or something similar. In practice, though, the actual actions at this stage usually aren't as substantial.

With the background out of the way, it's fairly easy to see why geniuses don't matter: they'll pass the test. Five or ten ESL students (or low-income, or at-risk, or whatever) can make or break a school of 3000. With the way the NCLB program has structured AYP, it should be obvious where a principal/district would focus resources.

I'm not arguing that schools don't need monitoring; they do, no doubt. But if this system sounds ridiculous to you, please do all of us a favor and let your elected officials know.

Re:of course

[Usquebaugh]

Sounds like a fair system. To the best students go the best teachers. You want the best teachers for your child make sure the child understands the score. No way should a good teacher be forced to teach students who do not want to study.

Re:of course

[SatanicPuppy]

Actually I was in a tracked school...I graduated in the early 90's, so that should give you a data point. I moved into the system in 9th grade, and was immediately shunted into the "standard" classes, where an "A" average was a 4.0 (As opposed to the Remedial classes where it was 3.0 and the Accelerated classes where it was 5.0). I stayed there until my junior year, when the first round of standardized tests swept through and I outscored almost the entire school. Got put into the accelerated track my senior year and my GPA literally doubled.

On the one hand, as someone who experienced both sides, I really appreciated being in the advanced classes. It was night and day; better people, better work, better pace. On the other hand, it sucked hard being stuck in the standard track (there was no provision for smart kids there, because if you were smart, you wouldn't be there), and no real effort was ever made to reevaluate students once they ended up in a track.

I think tracking is in many ways too rigid, but I don't know of a better way to do it. Lumping all kids together is awful.

Re:of course

[MurphyZero]

Having been one of those freaks you talk about as well as an introvert, going to classes with students 4-5 years older than me HELPED my social skills. It is very easy to socialize with people like you, it takes social skills to socialize with people NOT like you. I didn't take geometry class with 11 year old eggheads like myself, I took them with average and above average 15 and 16 year olds. That way builds social skills. If they can't deal with being a freak, how are they going to manage when they first get a job and their boss is extremely average, or their President is well below average?

Likewise, being able to impress someone your own age is NOT going to get you a job when starting out; your boss is probably going to be at least 10-20 years older than you. The high school cliques do NOT teach you social skills. Only someone who is willing to go outside their clique, even their age group, are the ones who will truly develop social skills, at least for those those for whom it does not come naturally. And if those skills are not inborn, then trying to advance yourself is one way of getting some practice.

Re:of course

[MyLongNickName]

To the best students go the best teachers

"Bright" does not correspond to best. There are some students who work hard, but are not going to be tops academically.We need a system that takes the kids who do not want to learn and keep them from interrupting the education of those who do, regardless of their ability.

Re:of course

[anagama]

In reference to your "hold 'em back" recommendation based on a couple sensational news stories, I suggest this segment from TFA:

At the University of New South Wales, Gross conducted a longitudinal study of 60 Australians who scored at least 160 on IQ tests beginning in the late '80s. Today most of the 33 students who were not allowed to skip grades have jaded views of education, and at least three are dropouts. "These young people find it very difficult to sustain friendships because, having been to a large extent socially isolated at school, they have had much less practice ... in developing and maintaining social relationships," Gross has written. "A number have had counseling. Two have been treated for severe depression." By contrast, the 17 kids who were able to skip at least three grades have mostly received Ph.D.s, and all have good friends.

Re:of course

[Loconut1389]

The best teachers should be able to make a kid -want- to study by making it interesting and teaching it in a way that they personally understand and grasp the relevance/importance. Kids think they know everything- not necessarily the material- but are -sure- they would never need what they're being taught- I was one of them. I still studied, but it was so hard for me, I never gave it my absolute best- the return was just too low. I wish I'd worked harder at math. I was given the choice of a more advanced class because of my performance, but I opted for the easy route. I ended up not being challenged enough and my math interest and skills went outh the window and I'm paying for it big time in my adult life. I spent high school programming and running my business (an ISP)- it was just more rewarding. Anyway- long story short- kids don't know anything and they need good teachers to show them it can be interesting and how important it really is. Parents have lost control of their children and we've gotten too PC- it's abuse if you yell at you kid for being a know it all slacker who hates authority. We all hated authority, but kids no longer respect it and it often gets abused by idiot administrators who impose their own idealism and crackpot beliefs on students. I don't think kids can or should be spanked, caned, or any of that crap, but you had better believe I think kids should be able to get yelled at (after diplomacy has failed) for some of the offenses I saw as a student without the teachers fearing for their jobs and a lawsuit. We need good teachers for everyone more than ever because what we lack in control must be made up for in interest/excitement/incentive.

Re:of course

[Usquebaugh]

A teachers job is not sell the value of an education, that is a parents job. Too bad if the parent weren't up to it.

If a child does not want to learn it's not the teachers job to convince him otherwise. Instead the teacher should cut him loose and accept another student who wishes to learn.

A teacher is there to impart knowledge of the subject. He's not some motivational speaker but rather an aid to study.

School should be focused on turning out students who can pass the prescribed exams not used as some form of entertainment or punishment.

Make no mistake what I want is radical, it's flushing the idea of equality away and letting merit stand on it's own. To the winners the spoils. It's a harsh system but not an unfair one.

Re:of course

[UserChrisCanter4]

CompleatGentleman already said it better than I could: those kids don't necessarily get a better education. 5 or 10 ESL students failing to pass an English test doesn't mean that the school is sub-par in any way, shape, or form. The institution they're being bussed off to isn't necessarily any better, and as an added incentive, thousands of dollars that could be used for GT/AP/IB programs or helping those ESL students is instead spent on school buses to ship kids around a district. You can watch a relatively minor problem snowball into a huge one because of the way this is implemented, and it happens a lot more often that you'd think.

When a school is bad, it isn't a single sub-population dragging it down; you see it across the board and in areas other than AYP (graduation and overall test success rates, for example.) I'm not opposed to shipping kids out in that kind of a situation; it means a school really has slipped into unacceptable territory. For a fraction of a percent of the school to allow such actions to take place, though, is pretty ridiculous.

Re:of course

[Aladrin]

You fail to take a few things into account:

1) If the kid isn't gifted, they won't WANT to be in a harder class.
2) If the kid isn't gifted, they will do extremely poorly in a harder class.
3) If the kid isn't gifted, his friends will tease him unmercifully for being in the harder class. (Gifted kids don't have friends. Everyone teases them anyhow.)

I was in the 'GIFTED' program in elementary school. I learned a lot of things there that I would never have had a chance to learn at that age otherwise, but the class itself wasn't that much harder. What -was- harder was that I also had to do all my regular schoolwork as well. The other teachers singled me out for being in GIFTED, too. For instance, 1 year ahead of everyone else, I had to make sentences from my spelling words. I eventually got so bored with it, I started to make stories from them. And then so bored I used the words -in order- to make stories.

In middle school, they had another program that wasn't nearly as good, and a year after I left elem. school, they cancelled the GIFTED program, and the middle school one right after I went to high school. Those schools have nothing of the sort now until High School, where their are Advance Placement (AP) classes that are harder, but not really any more interesting, and dual-enrollment (colleges classes at the high school).

Without those classes, I would not have gotten into computers in 4th grade (Apple IIe!) and definitely wouldn't be who I am today. I have to wonder if I'd have the same sense of purpose without it. My sister doesn't have that sense... She only had 1 year of GIFTED and none of the one in middle school, I think. She got straight A's the entire way through school, with the exception of a band teacher who said 'nobody should get all A's' and gave her a B solely for that reason. She duel-enrolled in high school early and completed 4 years of highschool and 2 years of college in only 3 years. (Yes, she graduated both in the same year.) She burnt out on that, but that's another story. She's in college for Pharmacy now and getting straight A's as always.

Without those classes, I'd have been bored stiff. I'd definitely have a lot of time on my hands to get in trouble with.

Yes, we are failing our geniuses. (I am not genius level IQ. Any geniuses in the same situation would be very poorly handled indeed.)

Re:of course

[ZombieWomble]

While Gauss and Einstein were both very prominent in their fields in later life, it is an oft-repeated story that Einstein underperformed in school, while there are tales about the various mathematical insights Gauss demonstrated even as a very young boy. Hence the point is that just because someone is a slow learner at a young age doesn't mean it's appropriate to extrapolate this to judge their entire future potential.

It does somewhat dent the conclusion when one notes that the stories are certainly exaggerated, if not outright untrue - Einstein performed well in school, and there are questions about the veracity of some of Gauss' more impressive performances.

Re:of course

[thrawn_aj]

anyone know if they've ever tried splitting the smarter/average/dumb kids up into their own classes permanently from 5th or so through 12th, as in they hardly ever see the other groups anymore except between classes and at lunch?

Yes. I went to school (through high school) in India and I was lucky enough to be in such a system as you describe. That is one reason why the whole idea of "jocks" and "geeks" and "nerds" was so alien to me until I came to the US. In my day, the person we strived to compete with and get ahead of was the super-geek-jock :P - the guy/gal who did everything right. Kinda nice when you think about it. That gave me an edge that I have never regretted. My 3.5 years of college in the US (and I say this in a good way) were the most relaxing in my life, even with a physics major and I ended up learning a LOT of other stuff as well (I love liberal arts schools :D).

To give you an idea of what the system was:

Starting with the 3rd grade, the entire school (10 classes per grade level with about 50 students each = A CR**load of students :P), was put into the running. Classes were named from A through J and your initial class was determined by a criterion that no one seemed to know :P. However, after that, it was all merit-based. Your class (A - J) in the next grade was determined by how well you did in the current grade (exams, etc.) Upward mobility was the key and with it came the chance to be with the smart kids and learn from them. Oh it was farking beautiful :D. And it didn't really hurt anyone either - if you wanted to be a fuckup, you had full freedom to do so, without bothering the sincere kids and as a bonus you got to hang out with other fuckups like yourself :D. Win-win! Everyone's happy.

Of course, it couldn't last. The parents whose kids were in the loser classes saw this as a social stigma (albeit well-deserved). I heard that they discontinued this practice a few years ago so my hometown in India should be reaching full mediocrity right about now :P.

Re:of course

[Loconut1389]

We have broken parents. Good teachers accept that and do their best to out parent the parents. If we don't fix what the parents broke, they too will become bad parents and repeat the process. Parents send their kids to school for more than facts, even if they don't realize it. It is the teachers job to do more than parrot facts.

Re:of course

[Aladrin]

Yeah, I realize it's possible for smart kids to make friends. It didn't happen to me (or any of the smart kids I knew) until highschool.

I disagree about the mundane work, though. I think it's important for them to realize that not everything will be exciting, and that hard work is a necessary part of being in society, even when it seems rather stupid. Make them do everything the other students do and reward them with extra if they want it.

In fact, with the right program in place, you could do exactly that. All students have the minimum to do, but if they are bored or WANT to learn more, have the extra material available to them. The smart ones will think of it as play-time, the dumb ones will avoid it like the plague, and the average will think of it as a challenge. It would be tricky to implement, as there's no point in just giving them next year's work early, but rather to build on what they are learning that year and give them extra.

Using the spelling words in sentences a year early certainly did me no harm, and the logic puzzles we learned to do in elementary school are still fun to this day. We also did side projects like making a 'film strip' (with markers and blank strip) along with a recorded voiceover for the slides. And I see no reason that everyone couldn't have joined in the projects like the egg drop contest. (Well, except for my entry which got Jello banned from the contest ever after. It apparently stains concrete. The egg survived!)

In short: The answer isn't to offer the smart kids extra, but to offer it to EVERYONE and let them decide whether or not they want to do it. The extras receive no grades and no bonus points... They are merely there to challenge kids who are done with the rest of the stuff for class and want the extra. No parent could possibly argue with that, and you're not treating any child unfairly.

Re:of course

[DeadChobi]

I think the point is that children are not wheat. You do not beat them out of the system like so much chaff, leaving only the good kernels behind to be milled into fine flour. Those so-called "middling students" are still capable of making something of their lives, and with a series of good teachers they may yet be able to. NCLB was designed around preventing the education system from ignoring the average students because they're average.

NCLB was also supposed to ensure the all teachers are good teachers by establishing guidelines for basic qualifications and knowledge. If all teachers are good teachers, it's senseless to give only the gifted kids good teachers.

Re:of course

[hxnwix]

My jHS and HS provided three tracks: one for the unmotivated, one for those either naturally attentive & quick or studious and one for everybody else.

It worked well when teachers made sensible placement recommendations; keeping students with similar motivations and interests together serves the same function as university selectivity. In those cases where teachers irrationally recommended toward lower tiers, slighted students who wished to migrate (back) to a higher tier in a subject enrolled in summer school. Occasionally, some teachers recommended that a student take a remedial summer class, automatically preventing advancement.

In my case, for example, a certain teacher recommended that I take remedial algebra the summer before entering highschool. The school sent an enrollment form to my parents' house, which I intercepted and destroyed, enabling me to request another enrollment form - this one blank. I submitted it, enrolling myself in summer honors geometry, placing myself one year ahead of the curve, one tier up :-) I'm immensely glad that I did - it meant that I had already taken calculus BC when it came time to take AP physics, and it also enabled me to take calc IV off campus.

Neither my early education in manipulating bureaucracy nor my immersion in physics-as-Newton-intended-it would have been possible in the standard egalitarian gulag. I don't foresee sending my children to a public school; the opportunities and the quality of education are simply gone. Fortunately, they were strong enough in my day that I can afford to send my offspring to private school. TBQH, that's probably the goal of NCLB: to privatize quality elementary education, thereby further stratifying society and protecting the ignorance of the conservative voting block, who will, in bigotry and fear, will continue to vote consistently against their own interests.

Re:of course

[Usquebaugh]

I'm not talking about throwing away peoples lives. Education is not the be all and end all of success. In fact I want everybody at every station in life to have the chance for their academic ability to be measured. What I don't want is what we have now and what you propose to deprive gifted students of the chance for quick advancement and recognition.

To the best students should go the best teachers. It's a harsh idea in that 90% of the student body will never be taught by the best 10% of teachers. In fact I go a lot further in another post to this article, basically turning HS education 100% towards passing state set exams. Students can completely opt out etc etc. Radical idea that would open up the HS education system.

A middling student should have the opportunity to advance but not at the expense of an exceptional student. Good teachers for good students.

Re:of course

[Bluesman]

Or he had a 2.5 average due to boredom and frustration, and moving him to the advanced class gave him the motivation to get the A.

This isn't unheard of. In 1st grade I was considered "slow" and was at the bottom of my class. The teacher assumed I was stupid. I was bored and daydreamed constantly instead of doing the color, cut and paste dittos, which were assinine.

After maxing out a standardized IQ test (a fact that the school tried to hide from my parents) my parents thankfully realized what the problem was and sent me to a private school, where I excelled.

I'm so thankful that I went to grade school twenty years ago, instead of today. Today I would have been diagnosed with ADHD, put on drugs, and gone through life labelled a dunce.

Public schools really get my dander up, because this sort of thing is so common. There is so much blame to go around, and all of it is well-deserved. Bad teachers who don't give a crap, teachers unions, stupid politics, PTO moms who bulldoze the schoolboard into making ridiculously bad decisions...I could go on and on. There is hardly a punishment great enough for people responsible for ruining promising childrens' lives.

Home schooling used to seem like such a wacky idea, but my wife and I are seriously considering it instead of dealing with all this crap. That my tax money still goes to supporting a hopelessly broken system that does almost more harm than good pisses me off to no end.

Re:of course

[geobeck]

...such a fowled up system...

What about English classes?

I think he means the school was overrun by chickens.

Re:of course

[hankwang]

it is an oft-repeated story that Einstein underperformed in school,

From Wikipedia:

he was a top student in elementary school (Rosenkranz 2005, p. 29). ...
...introduced the ten-year-old Albert to key science and philosophy texts, including Kant's Critique of Pure Reason and Euclid's Elements (Einstein called it the "holy little geometry book").[7] From Euclid, Albert began to understand deductive reasoning (integral to theoretical physics), and by the age of twelve, he learned Euclidean geometry from a school booklet. Soon thereafter he began to investigate calculus.
... when Einstein was fifteen [...] Albert wrote his first scientific work, "The Investigation of the State of Aether in Magnetic Fields".[8]

But then you say:

It does somewhat dent the conclusion when one notes that the stories are certainly exaggerated, if not outright untrue

I don't see how this conclusion is at all possible based on Einstein's youth.

Yes.

[oskay]

>Does No Child Left Behind mean that nobody can get ahead, either? Of course it does. If *any* child gets ahead, *millions* of children are left behind that one. I have always referred to this program as "no child gets ahead"-- it's turned out to be remarkably accurate.

Re:Yes.

[vonFinkelstien]

In Sweden the phrase used is "Lika för alla" (The same for everyone). My principal says that means: "Lika dålig för alla" (Just as bad for everyone). They are very anti-elitist here in Sweden (I blame it on years of being run by trade unions aka the Social Democrats).

No Child Left Behind doesn't matter

[faloi]

The public education system has been failing gifted students since long before No Child Left Behind.

Re:No Child Left Behind doesn't matter

[SatanicPuppy]

It's no surprise. Some cultures love their smart people. The Asian's love their smart people. They glorify them, they treat them with a lot of respect, and view them as a source of national pride.

We, on the other hand, do not. Culturally, Americans view intellectualism with suspicion. We love the captain of the football team; big, handsome, and dumb. You have only to look at the debates on science to understand that. There is societal pressure to not appear too smart, or you'll have a number of unflattering stereotypes applied to you. The last two losing presidential candidates both had their intelligence used against them in an unflattering way; they were know-it-alls, dorks, geeks, namby pamby sissy faggot intellectuals, whereas the guy everyone regards as the dumber candidate is trustworthy and strong.

A lot of it probably has its roots with Christianity. The Devil is smart, remember? When Dante was populating the Inferno, he dumped Odysseus in the 8th circle, 1 up from the bottom. Why? Because he's a smart, tricky bastard, just like the Devil is supposed to be. This country has a lot of radical Christian roots (Puritans, anyone?) so it's not all that surprising that our views on intellectualism are shaped around that.

Re:No Child Left Behind doesn't matter

[MightyMartian]

I think you might overstate your point a bit, but I do think you have one never the less. The rise of intellectualism during the Enlightenment was also a period when it was permissive to view religion with suspicion, where the human mind was something to be glorified as much if not more than some fuzzy sky deity for which Europe had been battered bloody for a couple of hundred years before. Heck, men like Madison and Jefferson, who didn't bother to hide their own contempt for Christianity, were not only accepted in society, but became major politicians and statesmen, and were major architects of the United States itself. By Lincoln's time, we were already heading into the post-Enlightenment era, where politicians had to make all the right religious sounds.

Now we have powerful lobbies seeking to undermine science education in the United States, trying to find ways to sneak past that great product of the Enlightenment Age; the Bill of Rights, so that there superstitious worldview can be promulgated in public schools.

If the US wants to know why its surrendering the production of scientists to other parts of the world, they only need to look at all those small-minded, anti-intellectual twerps that manage to get on school boards and state Boards of Education, with their Bible in one hand and hatred of knowledge in the other.

Re:No Child Left Behind doesn't matter

[Anonymous Coward]

I happen to be Catholic, and nobody who knows me would accuse me of being an intellectual lightweight Then you just don't know many atheists. You may have a high intelligence or capability for logic, I don't know. However, your faith in the existence of something that has no proof, by definition cannot be proven, and goes against all observed evidence of the nature of the universe casts great doubts on your scientific integrity. The fact that you let something you were taught as fact and prohibited from questioning get in the way of logical thought and scientific process leads me to accuse you of being an intellectual lightweight.

I hate to sound like I'm insulting your religion, each to their own and all that. But I can't stand by and watch someone say things like

There is a rich intellectual tradition amongst the mainline Christian denominations when Christianity/Catholicism especially has repeatedly proven to be one of the biggest obstacles to the development of mankind's knowledge. You caused the Dark Ages for crying out loud!

Re:No Child Left Behind doesn't matter

[clragon]

It's no surprise. Some cultures love their smart people. The Asian's love their smart people. They glorify them, they treat them with a lot of respect, and view them as a source of national pride.

I lived in China for the first 10 years of my life, so I know the Chinese culture well.

You said Asians love their smart people, it's true, but only under certain perimeters. The first problem is how do you define "smart"? Are smart kids the ones with the highest IQ test scores? Are they the ones that get the highest marks in class? Or are they the ones that can sell the most cookies to neighbors?

In China, IQ Scores are redundant and are not paid any attention to by the education system. Here however (In Canada), it is used to determine if a child is able to enter the gifted program in elementary school.

What the Chinese actually value is someone who can learn fast, think fast with flexibility and without making many mistakes. Although one might argue those people can be called "smart", but smart is too general a word in English and could be referring to a wide rage of characteristics. See, the Chinese does not value IQ or "gifted-ness" because it doesn't reflect what a person could accomplish. Instead, to get into the fast-track classes in China a child has to be placed in the top 40 in his or her grade (this is according to the middle school I was going to go to, there were 60 kids per class and 8 classes per grade.) So instead of getting the kids to take a IQ test of which they have no control over the results, getting into the fast-track classes becomes a competition between students so the winners are respected. In Canada, the gifted kids doesn't "beat" others to get into gifted classes, so there is much less of a reason for other kids to respect them.

One type of smart person the Chinese frown upon are people who stay home and study the textbooks all day, but can't carry the knowledge over and apply it to the real life. It wouldn't matter if the person has the highest mark in the class, if he or she can't solve simple social problems then they will receive little respect.

This is very similar to the definition of a Nerd in the western culture. However, one key difference is the clear line drawn between a "nerd" and a smart person in China, while here in Canada it is assumed anyone who has the highest mark in the class must be a nerd.

Re:No Child Left Behind doesn't matter

[JesseMcDonald]

Congress shall make no law establishing a state religion. But congress may make a law abolishing religion.

Not without a new constitutional amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

Anyway, you can't simply eliminate irrationality by government edict, and if you tried you'd only end up creating a bunch of martyrs. The more fanatical elements would continue believing in secret, and you'd end up with all the myriad social repercussions normally associated with severe ideological repression. Religious persecution has failed to achieve its goals too many times throughout history to be taken at all seriously at this point.

as a genius...

[bit trollent]

I feel like the education system totally failed me.

Err actually I went to a gifted & talented middle school (100 smartest kids in Houston). Then I went to a private Jesuit high school. Then I went to a relatively small public college in Dallas.

And now I make fat cash. I guess I really don't have anything to complain about.

Answering the hypothetical question

[A beautiful mind]

Does No Child Left Behind mean that nobody can get ahead, either?

Yes. "Not leaving a child behind", in educational context means lowering the level of the education for the average and the smart students.

Anyone with half a brain would tune education for the average person, or very slightly above the average to encourage improvement and the stupid/disabled and smart kids would get special programs to help their development the best. Leaving no man behind is a stupid analogy to the problem, as the stupid kid who can't learn more drags down the kids who can.

Well, hang on.

[seebs]

Maybe the developmentally disabled kids need a lot more help to be functional (and if they don't get that help as kids, we end up feeding them their whole adult lives), and the genuises don't need as much help?

Honestly, I wish I'd gotten help for my actual limitations (mild autism, which has been moderately crippling at times), but frankly, for the genius stuff, it would have been sufficient for the schools to mostly get out of my way.

Nothing has really changed

[overshoot]

I was one of the "beneficiaries" of the 1950s-1960s "Sputnik" educational reforms.

Then, like today, it was much easier for schools to keep classes uniform by holding bright kids back so that more effort could be spent on the "slow" ones. Uniformity is the goal, and it's a lot easier to dumb down smart kids than the other way 'round.

Oh, and here's a clue: if you offer bonuses for teachers of math and science, the teachers with the most seniority (regardless of whether they can add) will teach those classes. My kids had a math PhD teaching music, but she couldn't get into the math program against the ed majors who ran the system.

Intelligence reaps mockery in the US.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, in a society that regularly ridicules people because they are smart, what do yo expect?

Re:Intelligence reaps mockery in the US.

[Anonymous Coward]

I see where you are coming from but I don't think you see how deep it goes.

I don't know if media (like MTV or just about every movie made in the past 10 years) was what started it, but it's definitely one of the major players in this.

Children are being brought up to believe that doing what is right is uncool.
They are being brought up to cherish the quick self satisfaction and to immediately fulfill any base desire or appetite they have without even questioning their thought process.

Yes, it's true. At least in the schools I went to, it was very uncool to do what was right and to have limits and keep yourself in check. The 'cool' kids are those that have no restrictions, the kids that won't warn you not to do something that will potentially cause you more problems than enjoyment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayyid_Qutb saw it coming

It doesn't take a genius to figure it out !!!

[trolltalk.com]

"For example, up to ten times as much money is spent nationwide on educating 'developmentally disabled' students as gifted ones."

Duh! Smart kids learn faster than 'tards. Whodathunkit? Was this article written by Captain Obvious? So you've got a choice - either invest more in educating those who are slower learners, or pay to support them. Which is cheaper in the long run (hint - you don't have to be a genius to figure that one out either).

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Fail!

[uberjoe]

Failing our Geniuses?

Well my school sure failed me!

Hold up, Dude!

[overshoot]

frankly, for the genius stuff, it would have been sufficient for the schools to mostly get out of my way.

That can't be allowed -- it would mean leaving the others behind.

More to the point, it would mean treating students as individuals and that would totally screw up the system.

Re:Hold up, Dude!

[seebs]

"behind" is not defined in relative terms, but in absolute terms; it's about keeping students up to the minimum for their grade. You can go past it.

It's still the parent's responsibility.

[geekd]

I was in grade school in the early 80's. I went to a good public school. My parents were both teachers and chose to live in that neighborhood because of the school district. Even then, the gifted program was just OK. My parents had me in several after-school classes and activities to bolster the schools shortcomings.

It still comes down to parents doing actual parenting. If you've got a gifted child, you have to know they are only going to get so much from their school.

I was lucky. My parents knew what they were doing. They let me explore my interests without pushing. They had me in a creative writing class. They got me into science competitions. The best thing they did was buy a computer for the house. This was a TRS-80 in 1982. It was a stretch for the household budget, but messing with that taught me more than anything else.

geekd

First Hand Experience

[Token_Internet_Girl]

I am 25 years old. I spent 1st grade through 8th grade in the ALPHA program in Florida, which required an IQ testing of 135 or above to attend. I would say that on the whole, I felt like I was constantly dealing with uninteresting and repetitive work. I know being gifted isnt "a handicap" but there was always an air of "ok well, you're smart enough, there are plenty of other people who actually need our attention." The only time I was being truly challenged was in my 2 hours of ALPHA a day, in which times we would do brain teasers, read Shakespeare, do simple physics projects, etc. Looking back I know our budget for that class sucked royal asshole. Our class was in the most broken down portable room on campus. The teacher often brough her own materials and made up stuff for us to do on hand-written photocopies. So yeah, I can see how this article would have some weight in truth.

Obligitory "Incredibles" quote:

[SatanicPuppy]

"When everyone is special, then no one will be."

Home/Private school

[iamacat]

It's hopeless to make talented students go to schools where even the most violent and the most stupid can not be denied admission. Gifted students will be bullied (sometimes literally) to death because of their different personality, tendency not to hang around in peer groups that can not understand them and plain jealousy. Besides, how exactly can a teacher lecture in a single class where some students are having trouble with multiplication tables and others have questions about derivatives?

Ideally, we need a system of student competitions that identifies talent and sponsors the winners for tuition in private, more challenging schools - as much for their protection as for accelerated education. This is unlikely to happen though because of both lack of money and current attitude of political correctness that allows "special needs" students to beat up gifted ones at will. In the meantime parents should step up to the plate, do home schooling the best they can and organize study groups where students can help each other get more information from books and Internet.

No Child Left Behind

[ArchAngelQ]

Just to be clear, the 'No Child Left Behind' nonsense has no additional funding for schools, and just additional requirements. Specifically, testing, testing, and more testing. That's it. Really. It requires a great deal more testing of students than ever before, and a certain pass rate for a school to get existing federal funding.

The end result is that children who are just below the pass rate on the 'pre-tests' (really, just more tests, but the results only get examined by the teacher or the school faculty) get the most attention. Those above it, especially well above it and those well below it, are more or less shafted by the way it's designed.

Alternately, several school districts have simply changed the rules for what constitutes a pass, and what a failure, on their tests, so that they have a high enough pass rate to continue to get full federal funding.

As it happens...

[Otter]

For all the hysteria about the failure of the US educational system, going back at least to Sputnik and probably long before, it continues to generate the most creative, innovative people in the world. Just because it's obvious to the author that the only thing to do with very smart kids is to move them ahead multiple grades, or separate them from their families and isolate them with other very smart kids, doesn't mean that's really the best way to maximize their potential, let alone their happiness.

Achievement levels off once you start generating knowledge yourself. Learning logarithms when you're 10 instead of 14 isn't going to make you significantly more likely to "cure leukemia or stop global warming".

Look at those "geniuses" who get packed off to college in their early teens. Have any of them ever accomplished anything noteworthy?

Re:As it happens...

[DragonWriter]

For all the hysteria about the failure of the US educational system, going back at least to Sputnik and probably long before, it continues to generate the most creative, innovative people in the world.

I'd like to see the evidence that people educated in the US system are, per capita, more "creative" and "innovative" than those produced in every other educational system in the world. Really, this sounds to me more like nationalist mythology than anything resembling a fact, and contrasting it with "hysteria" is somewhat ironic.

Learning logarithms when you're 10 instead of 14 isn't going to make you significantly more likely to "cure leukemia or stop global warming".

I don't think the difference between "gifted" and "average" students is learning logarithms at 10 instead of 14. Its more like the difference between learning logarithms at 10 and having a vague idea as an adult that they are somehow connected to the Taco Bell chihuahua.

Look at those "geniuses" who get packed off to college in their early teens. Have any of them ever accomplished anything noteworthy?

Even assuming the answer is no, wouldn't that demonstrate that, indeed, the US educational system is, contrary to your argument, failing the gifted? I mean, if they weren't being failed, you'd expect them to acheive noteworthy things at the same proportion as the rest of the population.

Re:Kids today

[SatanicPuppy]

Doesn't make it any easier when the system is designed to hold you back. Yea, sure, you're in history class, and the teacher is lecturing out of the book, so you just start reading the book. You think when you finish the book they let you move up a class? Or do you think the teacher will start ragging on you for not paying attention because you've read the damn book two or three times, and you're bored out of your fricking mind?

And do you think when the teacher hears your assertion that you've read the book that that teacher will react with anything but scorn? And do you think that teacher will be surprised and pleased that you actually appear to have mastered the material, after he's stopped class to flip ahead and bombard you with study questions from the later chapters of the book?

Or do you think that he will be so enraged at your showing him up in front of the class that he will go out of his way to pick on you for the rest of the year? You'll end up with a reputation as a "discipline problem," and spend the rest of high school magically ending up in classes with other "discipline problems" which is the nail in the coffin as far as ever giving a damn about school.

And those grades are critical for getting you into the sort of college that you'll really need to be in to get the most out of it. Mediocre grades and phenomenal test scores will only take you so far.

Nothing new.

[linuxwrangler]

My K-12 days were in the 60s/70s. My mother was a teacher who quit after my sister and I were born. She used to be infuriated after parent/teacher meetings where she would ask a question and get the "don't worry, we're the professionals, you're an untrained parent" attitude when she had her education masters from Stanford.

Frustration with the schools led a group of parents to form an action group that discovered, among other things, that the district had claimed they had a MGM (Mentally Gifted Minors) program to get funds when they actually weren't doing anything for the gifted children but rather just grabbing money for the budget.

They did make a small dent - especially when my dad was elected and re-elected as head of the Board of Education. But I'm not sure that any of the good they did lasted much past his term of office.

The former Secretary of Education commented on NPR the other day that 40 years ago the best option for college-educated women was teaching and that's what about 50% of them did. That pool of (probably unfairly) cheap teaching labor dried up long ago. If you want good people as teachers you are going to have to pay them. Conversely, the teaching establishment needs to stop the same-pay-for-all nonsense. Teachers in difficult-to-fill specialties like science and math should be paid more. Top-flight teachers should be compensated better as well. Bad teachers should be fired. (There's no excuse for tenure in K-12.)

It depends...

[weston]

... on whether or not the gifted student is smart enough to figure out how to use resources to direct their own learning.

I'm one of the first people to admit there are problems with many public schools. I went through an education to be a secondary math teacher. I stopped after student teaching because I realized I didn't want to deal with a lot of the issues.

But when I look back over my public education -- in Utah, where per pupil spending traditionally lags pretty far behind many other places -- I have to admit it was pretty damn good overall. When they realized I was breezing through all the reading primers in first grade, they made sure I knew how to use the school library and pointed me at a few particular topics. I got after school access to some of the first computers the schools had. My parents helped, taking me to the local library and enrolling me in community classes, but the staff was helpful. That was elementary school. My high school had a full quiver of AP classes and the teachers were, by and large, good. And they had a program where advanced students could also take courses from the public community college. All in a small-government, relatively low income and not large tax-base state.

I daresay I didn't get near as much out of my public education as I could have if I were more focused and ambitious. One guy took all of the computer science classes, took advantage of after school lab time to learn everything he could about the unix minicomputer we had and C, and got a job not long out of high school working as a sysadmin for a salary that a lot of college grads don't get. Couple of people I knew used some pretty advanced language skills to work as au pairs or English teachers in foreign countries. Me, I learned to play nethack in the lab after school. :)

The point? I think most of the smart kids -- especially if they have any kind of decent direction from parents, or a counselor, or some kind of mentor -- can take advantage of the existing system just fine, and learn to find resources outside of it to further their own goals.

The ones with developmental disabilities, by contrast, are often the one with issues that are actually keeping them from getting even a fraction out of the system. That's why a disproportionate amount of resources are directed there.

None of this is to say there shouldn't be some changes in how things are done. I'm just a tad skeptical of sweeping statements like "no one can get ahead." My observation is that's simply false.

Re:It depends...

[Rakishi]

... on whether or not the gifted student is smart enough to figure out how to use resources to direct their own learning.

The point? I think most of the smart kids -- especially if they have any kind of decent direction from parents, or a counselor, or some kind of mentor -- can take advantage of the existing system just fine, and learn to find resources outside of it to further their own goals. Kids are kids. Just because a kid is a genius doesn't make him anything other than a kid. You're expecting these kids to not only be smart but also extremely motivation and fully knowledgeable about what is possible.

You know what they'll figure out on their own? That it takes 10 minutes to get the password of every student in the school. Why? Because it's about the most interesting thing they can do during school hours.

How do you expect a kid to be motivated about anything when they're forced to sit for 6 hours a day in a chair and be subjected to repetitive babbling on things they learned the first time the teacher said it. Of course any attempt to claim they already know this will be returned with a "too bad, you need to stay in this class since we don't care how boring it is" response from the school. And no the school doesn't care how good the child is or how gifted they are but simply sends out the same form reply anytime someone even dares to ask to do something different.

Back in the days when the grass was greener...

[SamP2]

When I used to go to middle school (grades 6 and 7), our classes were split into three groups, A B and C, based on how well we were doing (A=best, C=worst). There were separate classes based on the group (group A studied together with other group A students and separate from students from the other groups).

There were more than just raw grades that determined what group you were in. Behavioral problems (you are dealing with young kids, remember) were a very big factor, and overall, how willing you were to learn took precedence over your natural talent. That's why you saw good and bad grades even in the A group (where I was in), because many kids who did try hard and therefore were in A group still didn't manage to do well, especially in courses like math.

It also meant that even some group C students got As, based on things like improvements, behavior, etc.

And back then, nobody had a problem with this system. Yes, the grades were mixed (getting an A in group C was nowhere near as hard as getting an A in group A) but the final grades don't really mean anything in middle school, it's more about what you actually learn. The shift and focus was very different. Group A (the students of which were more disciplined and hardworking) actually focused on the academic curriculum, while group C students were working more on social and behavioral issues (which to them, at that point, was more important to learn than just the academics).

And it's not like these were two different schools. Only some academic-based classes (math, English) were separate, while classes like gym or arts, as well as other activities (breaks, field trips) were together, so it did not create a "segregationalist" impression. Most importantly, it provided each group with the study THAT GROUP needed most, the problematic kids got the attention they needed and the rest had a chance to actually learn the subject without having the problematic kids interfere.

P.S. Just because I see this question coming: Yes, most students in group A TENDED to be white and in C there were more minorities, but we still had quite a few minority kids in A, and the race itself was not a factor. (The minorities in group C were there because not because they are the minority, but because they were poorly performing or problematic students who happened to be the minority). Yes, due to social factors and whatnot there tended to be more minority "problem" students compared to the general population, but you know what? Back then the schools were designed to provide an education and teach students a set of skills (whichever skills the students needed the most), instead of playing politics and trying to fix (or pretend to be fixing) social problems that have nothing to do with the school's purpose.

Nowadays, of course, any school board member who THINKS about trying to introduce such a system would be labeled a Nazi racist elitist snobbish evil person who eats children for breakfast...

There must be constant challenge

[MalleusEBHC]

Although I'm not close to the level of the kids in the article, I was always in the advanced classes throughout my K-12 days. For example, I was three years ahead in math. Even being so advanced, I always had a very easy time, and I got excellent grades. And this was all at very good schools in the Bay Area, where I had plenty of classmates who went to Cal, Stanford, Ivy Leagues, etc.

But then it all changed when I got to college.

I went off to college, and I got my ass kicked. Royally. This was a concept that was totally foreign to me. I wasn't prepared to learn stuff that didn't come to me instantly. I had no work ethic. I ended up flunking multiple classes my first semester freshman year. While I had the intelligence to succeed in college, years of skating through classes had lowered my expectations and made me overconfident. I ended up graduating just fine and I've got a nice job, but throughout my time in college I didn't come close to my potential because I had gotten so accustomed to taking the easy way out.

Looking back on it, there came a point when I was no longer challenged in middle school and high school. As soon as I hit the farthest that the school would advance me, I stagnated. The problem was that I was always judge against my age group peers. If you're three years ahead and still at the top of the class, most people think that it's a great job. But it's not. You can learn a hell of a lot, both academically and socially, by being pushed beyond your comfort zone. Without a constant challenge, there is much less incentive to keep pushing yourself. Regardless of intelligence level, be it special ed to gifted, our focus on education needs to be identifying and providing difficult but attainable goals for all students. Having one standard for everyone is inevitably going to fail people at one or both ends of the curve.

Re:There must be constant challenge

[Shados]

I hear that a lot. It actually happened to my girlfriend (yes, I have one!), even with me warning her about it (since I had finished college before she started, being a few years apart and all).

The thing is, how much you know, or how skilled you are, is completly insignificant in life. I use daily less than 1% of what I've learned between 7th grade and the end of college, even though I'm working in exactly the field I studied for. The world changes, things change.

The only thing that really matters, is how good one is at learning, at self control (thats a big deal that all of the kids that say they are bored in school and thus have behavior problems should realise), at dealing with things. In all my years after elementary I was a top of the class, didn't do anything, didn't need to study, nothing. But I quickly realised that that was never the point. I could see that what I was learning was meaningless. So I gave myself my own challenges. Didn't use the books and tried to figure out equations on my own, did tests without calculators even if they were designed to be, tried to figure out ways to apply what I was "learning" to my own problems.

By the time I hit college, I -knew- things wouldn't be different, and I had looked ahead at what it would be like, so from the get go I was ready. I actually ended up with -much- higher grades there (went from "usualy first or second of class" to "first of the program, consistantly"), simply because I had taught myself how to "learn", as opposed to teaching myself "what I needed to get good grades". Thats something that no teacher can teach you, and its a lesson that I was simply told by people who knew better, and that I kept at heart.

Patience, disciple and self control and organisational skills are quite a bit more useful than all the algebra in the world. I don't remember anything I learned in school (as can be seen by my sub par writing skill, though to be fair, english isn't my first language by a long shot), but if I ever got in a situation where I'd need any of those skills back, or new skills, I could take them back up in minutes. Even in schools when everything is too easy, you can still "learn" that if you try. Being pushed will just make you learn more stuff, but it might not necessarly give you those skills. In real life, if you've been prepared well academically and in various trainings, you WILL find yourself in "wavy" situations (where things look too easy, and quickly change), far more often than you'll simply be pushed to your limit...

At least thats how I see things, and its been working both in school, college, and in the real world for decades :)

Re:Kids today

[VicarofCletus]

Oh trust me, they try. You should have seen the look on my high school principal's face when I asked to take physics as a sophomore (after all, it was a senior course). Eventually they settled on the excuse that I hadn't taken algebra II, but it was agreed that they would let me in if I dual enrolled at the local community college and took an equivalent level math course. After getting the highest grade in the class (and teaching it one more than one occasion), I was told that I would have to take algebra II the next year. Their stance was that, while I had already covered all of the material, algebra II was a graduation requirement which could not be met outside of the high school. I would not be allowed to graduate without retaking the class. Thankfully I got out.

In my experience (mine and people I know), it's not that gifted kids don't try to get ahead, it's that they are often actively prevented from doing so.

Special needs != Stupid

[netsavior]

Don't forget that historically many people who went on to be geniuses were considered retarded or in modern terms developmentally disabled... like Einstein, for example. Many extremly technically gifted people are categorized as being Autistic, which often comes with high intellegence, with low social skills... And autism is one of the biggest cost initiatives in the no child left behind campaign. Special needs != Stupid High performing student != gifted/genius No child left behind just makes it more painfully obvious that the school system is only a very expensive, very useless state mandated babysitting service. Real learning happens when people are left to persue subjects they are passionate about. I can't believe people still think that a genius will be somehow less valuable and less effective with less school resources. In fact, I would be willing to say that the less the "education" process gets in the way of learning, the better.

The Money

[eepok]

The statistic stating that "up to ten times as much money is spent nationwide on educating 'developmentally disabled' students as gifted ones" has no bearing on whether or not gifted students are getting their due and appropriate education. The simple fact of the matter is that special education requires MANY MANY more resources than a class specialized in advanced education. I work at university sponsored school for students with ADD, ADHD, and Asperger's kids and I can personally attest to the amount of money that needs to make sure these students grow up to become normal functioning members of our society. Psychologists, occupational therapists, speech therapists, specially trained teachers -- almost all of which have their PH.Ds. It's no surprise it costs more. As others are stating, the failing more frequently comes from poor school districts that aren't able to afford the advanced courses (or the better-skilled teachers to teach them). Or, more pervasive, the American love of idiocy and stupidity. I believe the best way to change it around and start helping our gifted students would be to publicly award smart people on TV instead of athletes and actresses.

Follow the wisdom of Mark Twain

[JoeCommodore]

If you really want to exceed follow this bit of wisdom from Mark Twain:

"I never let schooling get in the way of my education."

Schools are NOT the beginning and end of our education unless we choose to believe it (unfortunately many of us do nowadays.) Fortunately if you have a gifted person and just give them the opportunity to learn and explore and show them where resources are and how to use them (Library, searching Google, etc.) they will go running with their education themselves.

For many of us those opportunities were the home computers of the 80s and bunch of programming books and type-in game articles.

To flesh that out some

[homey of my owney]

What the educational system at large now represents, is a dumbing down to the least common denominator so that nobody feels bad.

No child should be left behind, and certainly school can be challenging for some. But by instituting a tenet that "There are no losers" so let's give everyone an award - we're raising a generation that thinks mediocrity is ok. It's not ok, and the failure to nurture gifted children is ensuring our future demise.

What ever happened to respecting and cherishing differences? ... like "This child is bright, this one... not so much"

Re:To flesh that out some

[smittyoneeach]

No, the proper quote here is from Caddyshack:
Judge Smails: Well, the world needs ditch diggers, too.

Re:To flesh that out some

[yurnotsoeviltwin]

I absolutely agree. I went to a math and science charter school aimed at gifted students (our average SAT was by far the best in the state, and we were up in the top ten nationally in a lot of academic competitions), and the school district that we were affiliated with absolutely HATED giving us money. In fact, the governor even hated us until she realized she could make herself look better by including Charter schools as public schools in statistics, giving the state's average SAT a ten point boost (from a school of less than 1000 students). The claims made against us were that we were "stealing" all the good students from the public schools, meaning, apparently, that students are not in school to learn, but they are in school to make their schools look better. If the public schools could have given us as good an education, Charter wouldn't exist.

Re:To flesh that out some

[netsavior]

Aparently last time we raised a generation that mistakenly thinks school is important.
School is only important to the mediocre.

The truely notable, exceptional people will be bored no matter what you put in front of them. School is a waste of time for everyone but those who would be left behind without this program. Nothing worthwile (acedemically) happens before college anyway, and even then real learning doesn't really start untill you break free of "those who can't do" and start getting some real world experience. And by then those that would be left behind are long gone.

Re:To flesh that out some

[DeadChobi]

You've got it wrong. The truly notable will make the best out of any situation they're in. Even school. The mediocre will be bored by every situation they're in. Why not take the time to find out why your teachers got into teaching in the first place? Do it. Ask them. Don't just brush this off by saying that they couldn't do anything else, because you would be wrong about most of them.

Re:To flesh that out some

[iamhassi]

"exceptional people will be bored no matter what you put in front of them."

Not to boast any but I was in grade school in the 80s and I would finish classroom assignments much faster than all of my peers. After helping all the students immediately around me understand and complete their assignments I would get out of my seat and help other students.

Teachers labeled me hyperactive and moved my seat into the corner and used tape to create a box around my seat, telling me I'd be punished if I left the box. Later I was put on Ritalin, which was brand new in the 80s. That helped, but I wish instead of medicating me I would have been allowed see how far I could have gone.

Re:To flesh that out some

[Mattintosh]

No, the smart ones are always bored with school. They make their own education. Unfortunately, the schools aren't allowing that, much less encouraging it.

Mediocre people lap up the "education" they get from school without concern for their own welfare. They learn what the book or teacher tells them to learn. They don't teach themselves to think. They do so at their own peril.

The real world will place you into a special hell called "middle management" if you're mediocre. The smart ones just burn in slavery or, if they're really smart, reach escape velocity and start their own business.

Re:To flesh that out some

[adamruck]

What most people don't understand is that all of the following are true:

a) Crappy brain + gifted drive = mediocre career
b) Mediocre brain + mediocre drive = mediocre career
c) Gifted brain + crappy drive = mediocre career

Being "gifted" doesn't mean shit without a lot of other good attributes. Even if you have a gifted brains AND drive, if you have really crappy anger management, your still screwed. Schooling is only 1 part of a much much much larger equation.

I would suggest visiting this page to see what some famous people have said about the subject.

http://creatingminds.org/quotes/effort.htm

Re:To flesh that out some

[netsavior]

I am long out of school. I got great grades, I learned how to manipulate teachers who only want to feel like they are making a difference in the world, no matter how untrue it is, if you make them believe it you will succeed in school. Please do not dismiss my dislike for all things acedemic for some sort of bitterness because of failure. I was highly successful at manipulating that marvelous machine. I can tell you that AP classes in high school and advanced courses in college are significantly easier than lower level ones. Now that I have had a few years to detox from being forced to "learn" I can finally understand what it is to actually learn and to like doing it.

I understand that they have grand dreams of discovering/moulding the next shakespeare or Einstein, but the truth is useful genius is not acedemic. Shakespeare didn't write plays because his teacher asked/told him to. Einstein didn't study physics because he needed the credit hours. They did those important things because they NEEDED to. No lack of school funding, or increased funding or even a zealous or uncaring teacher would have changed their lives in any way.

You can't MAKE anyone do anything, and that is why the fundamental concept of "education" is flawed. A system designed to 'teach' will always be less effective than one that allows people to learn. Learning is acquiring knowledge and the ability to apply it, sure if there is always some "teach" on tap then you will occasionally take some in and do some learning. But teaching is a side-effect of learning, not the other way around.

If you are trying to drink out of a bucket of water with a straw, and somebody takes the bucket and dumps it on your head, sure you will probably get some water in your mouth, but allowing the student to drink at their own pace would me much more effective, no matter how thirsty the person was or how big their straw is.

Untill you are at a point in your life where you are free to learn, without being actively taught; you aren't learning to your fullest ability, you are at best learning to the fullest ability of your teacher, or they are a distraction to your actual learning.

Re:To flesh that out some

[Wiener]

But by instituting a tenet that "There are no losers" so let's give everyone an award

We keep finding new ways to celebrate mediocrity!
- Mr. Incredible

Re:To flesh that out some

[tachyonflow]

That's interesting. I went to a similar school, and when we took the ACT/SAT, they asked us to use the school code for our previous school in an attempt to avoid the other schools getting upset for losing their high-scoring students. I think they were still upset, though.

Re:To flesh that out some

[MrNaz]

"That's a pretty snobbish thing to say." I believe you just proved his point.

Re:To flesh that out some

[ShieldW0lf]

Snobbish, but true.

Exceptional people don't need to be spoon fed, they find repetition boring, and they find the necessity to waste their days proving to their intellectual inferiors that they can complete rudimentary tasks.

Hell, I knew how to read, print, add and subtract when I was 4 years old. You think there was a day of my life that I found school challenging? I used to finish all my classwork and all my homework homework and two paperback novels a day before school finished for the day, and I was still spending lots of time staring vacantly out the window.

I have no regard for the education system. All it ever did, throughout my life, was hold me back, slow me down, and force me to be surrounded by violent stupid monkeys.

Re:To flesh that out some

[Lemmy Caution]

While there's some truth to what you say, a lot of people with mediocre achievements use excuses like the boredom of school as an excuse for their untapped potential, and geeks are among the worst of the lot. Success isn't about intelligence: it's also about discipline, energy, drive, and attitude. A surplus of the last four can even mitigate against weaknesses in brain power. Of course, if all you have is brain power (and a general absence of proportionate accomplishments) then you're like to elevate that above all other criteria.

If you are smart but otherwise ungifted, you'll probably find yourself surrounded by people you feel smarter than. If you're smart and living up to your potential, you should probably stop feeling smart, because you should be surrounded by people at least as smart as you are.

Re:To flesh that out some

[zacronos]

From "The Dispossessed", by Ursula LeGuin:

They were superbly trained these students. Their minds were fine, keen, ready. When they weren't working, they rested. They were not blunted and distracted by a dozen other obligations. They never fell asleep in class because they were tired from having worked on rotational duty the day before. Their society maintained them in complete freedom from want, distractions, and cares.

What they were free to do, however, was another question. It appeared to Shevek that their freedom from obligation was in exact proportion to their lack of freedom of initiative.

He was appalled by the examination system, when it was explained to him; he could not imagine a greater deterrent to the natural wish to learn than this pattern of cramming in information and disgorging it at demand. At first he refused to give any tests or grades, but this upset the University administrators so badly that, not wishing to be discourteous to his hosts, he gave in. He asked his students to write a paper on any problem in physics that interested them, and told them that he would give them all the highest mark, so that the bureaucrats would have something to write on their forms and lists. To his surprise a good many students came to him to complain. They wanted him to set the problems, to ask the right questions; they did not want to think about questions but to write down the answers they had learned. And some of them objected strongly to his giving everyone the same mark. How could the diligent students be distinguished from the dull ones? What was the good in working hard? If no competitive distinctions were to be made, one might as well do nothing.

"Well, of course," Shevek said, troubled. "If you do not want to do the work, you should not do it."

It's a very interesting fiction book which explores several "what if we did things *that* way instead?" ideas with regard to society; education is one of those touched on. I highly recommend it. From your comments, you in particular may find some ideas that resonate with you.

Re:To flesh that out some

[Anpheus]

It's revisionist to say that Albert Einstein did poorly in school and in higher education. He did well, and there's very little writing to indicate whether he was bored or not. The fact that he taught himself deductive reasoning, logic, calculus, and pretty much everything that made him the scientist we revere him has suggests, but does not prove that he was bored out of his mind at school.

It's possible that his gift was noticed, appreciated, and encouraged by the school. I think he finished in the top of his classes, at least wherein that information is recorded.

It was a different era then, with schools that genuinely appreciated intelligence...

Re:To flesh that out some

[Brad Eleven]

Hear, hear. The analogy about drinking resonates. The bored student just stirs the water with the straw--the thirst for knowledge makes you want to pick up the bucket and chug. There's an ocean of difference between the student who just wants to please the teacher and the one who transcends the concept of the student/teacher relationship in favor of satisfying profound curiosity about the subject. Recall that Newton didn't even need a teacher; he was happy to sit in his room and poke himself in the eye with a blunt knitting needle to better understand how the human eye perceives and processes light.

It wasn't until I realized that I wanted to understand computers--after trying theater, music, flipping burgers, working in a warehouse, transcribing Russian, teaching mentally retarded adults--that I really got motivated. I had developed this irrational fear of math, and when I realized that the curriculum for CS was a based on a math major, I hesitated for about 45 seconds. Then I just gritted my teeth and drove to the university and got started. Two months later I was in my first programming course, fifteen months after that I was interning as a sysadmin, eight more months and I had a UNIX system to myself with an assignment that required me to learn C in order to use a database API to "mechanize" purchasing for a regional phone company. Between internships, I'd ask my professors for more and they'd work with me to develop independent studies. During my final semester, the campus recruiters were peeing their pants because I already had a resume. Twenty years later, it's still all about digging in to figure out what's in it for me. Work has only been boring when I've forgotten this and found myself fulfilling someone else's ambition. Many times, it's been these very forums that remind me of this. Past the frosty piss and trolls, some of you have reawakened the curiosity because it's obvious that you know more than I do.

It's not--it can't be about being led the whole way. At some point, you have to realize--as in make real for yourself--that you want something bad enough to stay focused, to stay interested. My favorite professor used to present new programming concepts and then say, "Now go and convince yourself that this works."

This is not unlike the difference between playing around with, say, Perl, and having the language be the vehicle to get something that you want. I couldn't ever get math for math's sake, but when I saw it as the way to get and keep accounts on the computers at school, I saw the teachers in a different light.

And, of course, they weren't public school teachers, which is the matter at hand. Also, they could tell that I was after something. There's a noticeable difference to any teacher in the student who is engaged, who asks questions that indicate that he or she is committed to going beyond the subject matter of the course.

It also helped that I was paying my own way that time around. Your mileage may vary.

It's an entirely different experience when you're somehow in it for yourself. Up until my second time in college, I'd just been filling squares, trying to do what someone else told me. I thought there was something wrong with me because I knew I was intelligent, but I couldn't seem to get anything done. Straight A's with no plan is not going to bring anyone happiness. I didn't grok grammar by passing English in elementary school. I got it in Discrete Math. That unlocked what had been only rote memorization.

Then again, I did meet the guys who formed the Butthole Surfers while pretending to study Drama, so it wasn't a complete waste of time. Sometimes the value of an experience isn't apparent without the benefit of hindsight. Come to think of it, none of it was a waste. Even the sloppy attempts at "enriched" and "advanced" courses in middle school were valuable exposure to the subject matter. I developed the distinctions after I got myself aligned with what I wanted.

Re:To flesh that out some

[pclminion]

Now that's a pretty damn sour attitude. I was a gifted kid too -- a standout even among the other gifted kids. I was chronically bored in school. By my senior year of high school, I was probably skipping class 60% of the time. Would I describe all the "normal" people I was surrounded by all those years as "violent stupid monkeys?" Not in a million years.

The most important thing I learned in public school is how to interact with so-called "normal" people on the level of an equal, not a brainiac who comes to intellectually lord over them. You know, stuff like "respect," and "politeness," and the concept of giving everybody a fair shot to prove their abilities.

If you really look at the world and think, "What a bunch of complete turd brains!" You are going to have a very sad life.

Re:To flesh that out some

[ResidntGeek]

The thing about it is, I learned those things too. I learned stuff like respect, politeness, and how to interact with people like equals. That took, what, two weeks? Not four years. School is a waste of time, and the fact remains that while I'd never say it out loud, the people around me _were_ violent stupid monkeys.

Re:To flesh that out some

[The One and Only]

Success isn't about intelligence: it's also about discipline, energy, drive, and attitude. A surplus of the last four can even mitigate against weaknesses in brain power.

Then really, shouldn't our schools be about developing discipline, energy, drive, and attitude even in their best students, instead of developing boredom, cynicism, and putting them in an environment where, paradoxically, people only have their intelligence to feel good for themselves about?

Re:To flesh that out some

[Oktober Sunset]

That's not the capitalist way at all. The capitalist way is: exploit everyone to their limit for your own personal gain.
The poor are only given enough money so they can continue to work like slaves in factories for the rich.
If you were to make a capitalist-like system, the dumb kids would work as servants to the smart kids, fetching them books and carrying thier bags, while only getting enough education to read the spines of books they had fetch to the smart kids.

The smart kids would get smarter, while the dumb kids get dumber.

Re:To flesh that out some

[Toddlerbob]

Success isn't about intelligence: it's also about discipline, energy, drive, and attitude. A surplus of the last four can even mitigate against weaknesses in brain power.

I've spent the last twenty years teaching a "gifted" section in an Elementary school. Your comment (and also the rest of it, which I have not quoted) express exactly my point of view on the subject. When kids entered my class, they ceased to be the elite within their former classes, and instead became just another kid in the class, and, often for the first time, had to develop some discipline and drive.

Although I do have some egalitarian-inspired sympathy with the folks who want all students heterogeneously thrown into the same class (except they somehow still don't want the special ed kids and the out-of-control kids, of course), my experience is that "gifted" kids cannot be properly challenged in such a setting, if only because much of the challenge in a class comes, not from the teacher, but from the other young minds in the community.

Also, most teachers I know spend most of their time helping the kids on the bottom of the class. The idea of a teacher who only favors bright students with his attentions is, as far as I've seen, a myth. In thirty years of teaching I have yet to meet one. Of course, your mileage may vary, since I've only one lifetime of observations. This tendency of teachers to reach the bottom students at the expense of the top ones was true long before the No Child Left Behind Act, with it's disaggregation of students' test results, increased the pressure to focus on the bottom of the class. It's bound up with the reasons why most teachers become teachers in the first place.

Re:To flesh that out some

[Lemmy Caution]

Something else just occurred to me - you describe how teachers prefer to teach toward the bottom of the class. A lot of that is actually admirable and appropriate, I think: a society with a huge illiteracy rate would be a bigger problem than a society where some of the brightest and best are bored and have to find stimulation out of class. At the same time, I can't help but think of Matthew Broderick's character in "Election," who wanted very much to be a "good teacher" as long as his students didn't excel too much. The drive and ability shown by Reese Witherspoon's character, however, he couldn't stand - the kind of pleasure he got from his patronizing stance toward students whose accomplishments were unlikely to surpass his own significantly in scale was threatened by her character, who was clearly destined for grander things. Of course, all the resentment came out in the final scene in the movie, where the emotional logic of his character was stripped bare.

Is that what you mean about "why most teachers become teachers in the first place?"

Intellectual != weak

[AHumbleOpinion]

... We love the captain of the football team; big, handsome, and dumb ...

You have basically proven that you are just as ignorant and just as wiling to stereotype as those your rail against. Captains are usually intelligent. And some football (American) positions do require intelligence, the ability to quickly analyze a fluid situation (an unfolding play), develop a successful plan and refine that plan in real time as further developments occur. The fact that these skills are applied to big guys hitting your rather than a network intrusion is irrelevant.

... know-it-alls ...

It is not intellectualism that people dislike, it is arrogance and condescension. Also, if a political candidate can not communicate without seeming arrogant or condescending then they have some shortcomings in leadership skills.

... namby pamby sissy faggot intellectuals ...

Not all intellectuals are liberal. ;-)

I apologize if the preceding joke went to far. The point is that intellectuals come with various political viewpoints, various athletic abilities, various levels of moral courage, etc. Again, you display a narrow uninformed stereotype and resemble those your criticize.

Re:Bored Kids ...

[UncleTogie]

I wonder why so many bright kids are skeptical of school?

...maybe because some of us were thrown into alternative school for being different? For having a way of looking at life?

Example: School elections were coming up. A neo-punk and myself were musing over the morons running when it occurred to us: Why not form an "Anarchist Party", and encourage people to NOT vote? Posters went up {"I'm anarchist, he's anarchist, she's anarchist, we're anarchist, wouldn't ya like to be anarchist, too?" and were quickly torn down. Fights erupted {seriously...} until the government teacher came on the intercom:

"Attention, students. I understand that some students have formed the Anarchist Party. I can't say I approve of their message..."
{insert weak cheer here, mainly the friends of the candidates..}

"...HOWEVER, dissent IS part of the political process, and we're giving them the same right to put flyers up as those who are running."

...and after over half the school tore up their little "voter's registration cards", the school had to resort to bribing people to vote. A buck per vote. It's the only time I've found a school rewarding students for thinking outside the box...

The rest of the time you're thrown out for being disruptive. Eek.

Tracking

[Descalzo]

As another responder already said, it has been called 'tracking,' though I don't know if it's illegal. My school district frowns most heavily upon it, and prefers to deal with it in-class. But what if a student is 'mis-tracked?' If it's a track in which the student is re-evaluated annually then that kid is going to be really messed up for a year. I have been toying with the idea of regrouping on a weekly basis. The problem with a weekly basis is that it's hard to make a week as meaningful as a year. It's a hard question, one teachers and administrators are trying to solve.

On a related topic, it's odd that if a student has an IQ of 70, that's like 2 standard deviations below the norm, and the student is identified as intellectually disabled. Failing to identify and serve this student's needs is going to get your school into an enormous amount of trouble.
Then you have another student with an IQ of 130. This student is no more normal than the other. He is intellectually gifted. Failing to identify or serve this student's needs will not even earn anyone a slap on the wrist.

This problem will get solved when a slashdotter decides he has enough money to take this comparison all the way to the Supreme Court.

Re:Tracking

[blahplusplus]

"Then you have another student with an IQ of 130. This student is no more normal than the other. He is intellectually gifted. Failing to identify or serve this student's needs will not even earn anyone a slap on the wrist."

There's a huge difference though, the high IQ type has all ability to self acutalize. The internet and library are there for a reason, you can learn at any pace you want, its more likely gifted kids are just too lazy to do their own learning. In the age of the internet there is less and less of an excuse for high IQ types in my opinion, while the low IQ student will ALWAYS be at a sever disadvantage for the rest of his life, the high IQ type will not be. They just need to be pointed in the right direction and also most of the time to be left alone to study and create new works on their own, the people at teh edge of the high IQ spectrum should not expect their 'needs' to be served so much as as creating what they need since they at the top of the pile, why should anyone gifted expect interesting work when they in the top %1 of the population? I mean come on the dice is so loaded with gifted kids, most of them simply have character flaws, are lazy or oblivious to their own egotistical flaws.

One thing the article never said was: What about having her go to regular classes with her agemates but allowed to do her own learning? Bring her own books, get correspondance cousework from university? The article sounds like a big pity party.

Re:Tracking

[dbc]

Sorry to inform you, but it doesn't work like that. Kid's need intellectual coaching, just like the future sports stars need sports coaching. What if you had a stand-out little leaguer, and the coach absolutely refused to nurture that athletic giftedness. Two things would happen: a) the kid would not become a major leaguer, even if he had the potential, and b) every dad in the neighborhood would get together and form a lynch mob to take out the coach (rightly so, I'd join). Yet, your attitude with respect to intellectual giftedness is extremely common -- and it absolutely does great harm to these kids.

My own 8 year old daughter would not be able to teach herself math, physics, geometry, literature -- but she absorbs coaching very well. Oh... and she has an IQ of 187, and reads at the college sophomore level. Do the math: earlier in this thread an IQ of 70 was labeled special needs, and an IQ of 130 was labeled gifted. 130-70 = 60. Now, observe that 130+60 = 190, or roughly my daughter's IQ. Does she belong in a class with kids whose IQ is 100-130? If you say the kid with an IQ of 130 does not belong in the same class as the kids with IQ of 70, you have to say no. But she *does* need teaching, coaching, and peer interaction.

It's great to watch her get together with kids that are both age and intellectual peers. She and one of her friends were both studying Egyptology when they were 6 years old. They got together to play -- and did the normal 6 year old "dress up" thing that girls do... except that all the stuffed animals were turned into Egyptian gods and they wove Egyptian history into their play. *That* is why you need to give these kids a chance to interact with each other. A normal classroom is a torture for these kids.

Re:Tracking

[uncreativ]

"A normal classroom is a torture for these kids."

Ohh so true. My 2nd grade teachers thought I had learning dissabilities. In reality I was just so damn bored.
Thankfully my mother was a teacher for the school district, so when she told my teachers they needed to challenge me to get me to do better they were willing to give it a shot. They probably hated me for the trouble I was in class and would probably try anything by that point to make me less annoying. My teachers were somewhat surprised that all of a sudden I was less disruptive in class and did better academically.

I was not self actuated until high school. By that point, I didn't need teachers to teach me subjects--particularly math and the sciences. So I agree with your assertion that a young intelligent kid can benefit from some academic coaching.

I was placed in classes where I was the obviously much younger student in the class. I hated the ridicule directed my way for being intellectually capable. I was sensitive to the fact that I was threatening to others, so I learned to not speak up and give answers in a class environment except only occasionally--it wasn't necessary for the education of myself or my classmates, and I could just ignore the class and read ahead. That is an important social lesson that I may not have learned had I only been among peers as capable as me. It allowed me to know when it's appropriate to shine and when it's not--when an answer is needed to solve a problem nobody else knows, then show your stuff. I can pick out the special ed. (as in gifted special ed.) student a mile away. They never learned humility or how to interract with the rest of the world. They never learn how to take their gifts and use them to sway the masses since they are too busy trying to convince everyone they are right to the point of losing supporters. They develop their abilities for the most selfish goal of satisfying their need to feel they are better than everyone else. They become ignored geniuses.

Despite the assumed rigor attached to the study of physical sciences, for instance, acceptance of a scientist's theories often include a measure of politics. The history of science is filled with people long dead before their work is recognised or accepted. Einstein was a rare example of genius excepted in his lifetime. I believe it's not a coincidence that Einstien was also generally a humble and kind person.

I urge you to find a way to have your daughter be in a setting, at least for a small portion of her education, where she interracts with regular people. Afterall, the world is filled with regular people. Your 8 year old could, when ready and appropriate, spend time in some traditional college prep classes in a high school for instance. You can even have her approach this likely dull class not as an opportunity to learn the subject, but rather an exploration into how to interact with normal people. And please do everything you can to ensure she does not learn contempt for average people. Otherwise your daughter could end up sounding like the snotty girl in the article :

" 'People are, I must admit it, a lot of times intimidated by me,' she told me; modesty isn't among her many talents. She described herself as 'perfectionistic' and said other students sometimes had 'jealousy issues' regarding her. "

Um, No... Not Necessarily...

[morari]

Does No Child Left Behind mean that nobody can get ahead, either? The school system has always been set up to cater to the lowest common denominator.

I am officially a genius. I spent years in alternative classes, set aside to cater to my unique "gift". These classes occurred one day out of the week, in which we left the confines of the normal teachers' textbooks and sat around solving slightly more abstract problems. Some really fun projects took place as well, but they were few and far between. Afterwards we were still required to make up the work that we had "missed" in normal class that day and we received no special credit for our alternative work. It was akin to gym class, where the only way to get something other than "Satisfactory" on your report card was to not participate at all. This was up to the halfway point in junior highschool, afterwards I was traditionally home schooled and then attended an online academy.

Even for the regular kids, school is meant to be slow and plodding. You cannot get a head, but you can fall behind. The teacher is there to slowly explain things so that everyone can attempt to comprehend them. If that means boring 80% of the children that could manage fine without, then so be it! The public education system really isn't about learning though, is it? It's about molding youth into the form that civilization sees as beneficial. It is social conditioning with the intent of forcing you into being a productive member of society. You're made to memorize things while never truly understanding, and many of said subjects aren't nearly as valuable as others that aren't even taught at all. Of course, what is and isn't valuable is largely dependent upon what talents you have. I for one was never given the opportunity to indulge any of my interests in a school setting. Everything I know (save for some advanced mathematics and science) were self taught. My lifelong talents further guided me in the direction that I wanted to take my life and now contribute to a very satisfying lifestyle.

Not everyone can be successfully self employed, but anyone can find something that they like and make it their own if they only try. Too many of us get caught up in being or competing with the proverbially Joneses to live a happy life, and much of that is due to the social conditioning we encounter throughout youth. Many are not told or cannot see this when it is happening, only to be too far assimilated into the machine or much too beaten down by it to do anything once they do realize. Don't let that happen.

Best vs. brightest

[benhocking]

"Bright" does not correspond to best.

Absolutely. There is obviously a correlation between the two, but there are plenty of lazy bright kids in the advanced classes and plenty of hard-working not-so-bright kids in the general/remedial level classes.

As a former public high school teacher, I speak from experience. I taught physics and AP chemistry (both classes composed of advanced 11th and 12th graders) and physical science (composed of general/remedial 9th graders). I felt really bad for the few really hard working kids in my physical science class who had to put up with the disruptions of their fellow students. (Yes, I disciplined those kids, but you can only do so much in certain school systems.) I fought to put one student who I thought was of average intelligence but very hard-working in an advanced class for the following year. Unfortunately, that didn't work out as the advanced class was too far ahead of her. I had another student who was mildly mentally retarded, but was such a hard-worker that he outperformed almost everyone else in that class.

Re:Best vs. brightest

[cibyr]

I don't think it really matters. In my maths C ("very hard" maths) class, it was about 50/50 bright lazy kids and hard-working slower kids. The slower kids might have slowed us down sometimes, but they always made sure we got a good explanation for everything we covered. But then again, we had a very good teacher and I doubt the class would have fared so well without him. In physics, the class ran the gamut from very bright hard-working to goofing-off I'll-pass-somehow. Yet thanks to a skilled teacher, I know I learnt a lot more in that class than many of my peers at uni did in theirs.

In the two classes I didn't at uni that weren't considered "hard" or "academic" (read: mandatory) - English and Religious Education - the classes were full of students who didn't give a crap and/or had fundamental misunderstandings as to how the world worked. So the teachers didn't give a crap, and we learnt nothing. I literally spent more time in RE listening to my ipod than my teacher and yet only one student in the class did better than me.

In chemistry, the class was full of students who were trying hard to do well to get into uni, with a few bright-and-lazys who were there because it was a pre-req for their degree. Yet a useless teacher managed to confuse everyone to the point that ignoring him and reading the textbook was easier and set such poor exams that the major hurdle was understanding the questions rather than the chemistry.

So I think the teacher matters more than anything else. I know my maths teacher got good results out of one of the remedial maths classes as well. My physics teacher is now lecturing at the local university. My chemistry teacher... well, I think some poor boarding school has him now. But the problem is, all the metrics are geared towards measuring the students, rather than the teachers. And even if we could easily say Mr A is a much better teacher than Mr B, the unions are very much against any sort of performance bonuses or differential pay. A bad teacher hurts a weak student much more than they hurt a strong student, but a good teacher can take a strong student much further than a weak student. /Everyone/ needs better teachers, and crap like No Child Left Behind is disguising the problem.

Re:Shows the failures of socialism

[Bemopolis]

Given who conceived of and produced the NCLB Act (hint: it starts with W, and ends in 2009), it argues less against socialism than it does of a one-party government fully bought and paid for by industrial interests.

Oh, but that pisses on your precious socialism-bashing. Please, do go on.

Re:Shows the failures of socialism

[Denial93]

Actually, it is interesting you bring up socialism. Education is one of the very few things that socialist states, especially the Soviet Union and Eastern Germany, did very right. The Finnish education system, known for producing the highest-scoring pupils in the OECD-wide Pisa study, is a carbon copy of the East German system. The Soviet Union had an amazing percentage of university graduates and their number of female highly educated professionals was amazing for the time. Now sure much of their university time was wasted studying Marxism-Leninism, and the many-bedded dorm rooms of the time would seem ghastly today, but they did get the job done. For free, too.

Despite all talk of equality, socialist states spent a lot of time screening for promising students. Guess having a surveillance culture helps with that. Ever wonder why the Soviet Union had so many chess champions? Doping doesn't explain that one, early screening for talents and widespread chess clubs do.

Re:of course (from a teacher)

[Ying Hu]

Yes.

The answer that immediately came to my mind as well.

I'm a science teacher, and the focus of my school is exactly as described - it is to raise the test scores of marginally achieving populations. There are advanced courses in most subjects, but other than that no extra attention is paid to gifted kids, except at the most minimal level (i.e. the extra efforts of one sponsoring teacher) in some extracurricular clubs. Even the training provided to districts by national consultants such as those of Professional Learning Communities make virtually no mention of gifted kids (I listened very carefully for this at the conference I took part in). They advocate standardizing and homogenizing instruction, to a) increase the teaching skills of poor teachers, and to b) allow all kids to be graded by standardized tests. The implicit and explicit assumption is that a rising tide will raise all boats. Unfortunately, this whole process completely excludes the programs of truly gifted teachers (and they are admittedly too rare), and gifted kids find normal schooling to be incredibly boring a lot of the time.

Failing our teachers as well

[solar_blitz]

One of the reasons our nation's gifted children are suffering is because of a severe lack of skilled, qualified teachers to suit their needs. Let me elaborate with a personal story: my mom always talks about how my grandmother was a second grade teacher, and was well known for her ability to teach her second grade students well enough to read from the newspaper by the end of the school year. Parents went out of their way to get their children into her courses. The problem, though, was that she had a horrible salary. She was a single mother and had to take care of four kids. Life for my mother was hard.

Teachers like my grandmother aren't around anymore because other industries pay better. That's not to say people are greedy money grubbers, though, because in most of the United States it is difficult to support oneself on a teacher's salary. So when given the choice between taking a $40k teaching gig or a $60k software developing gig in a state like, say, California (where schools are nearly last place in the country and living costs are HIGH), the majority would go for the $60k gig. And without good teachers or resources, we end up taking the mindset of "How do we keep the less gifted students on track with the norm?"

We all see ads and propaganda for the Army, right? Recruiters at every school. But where the hell is the propaganda for teacher recruitment? If our public education system had the same budget as the military, none of these problems would've existed. We'd have had ads asking for teachers playing at the theaters before the previews came on. Superintendents of public school boards would be making speaches at universities about why you should get a job in teaching. Gifted students would have access to advanced courses and cirriculum in the same school as the normal kids. (I've got nothing against the nation's military, though, and I wasn't intending to give that message off. Sorry.)

On another note, I took an IQ test a while ago and found out that... well, my IQ wasn't as high as the girl in the beginning of the TIME article, but it was up there. I don't remember being able to talk as well as she did, but in my psychology research I found out I did a lot while I was a kid. Memorizing the names and locations of the United States, making large structures with building blocks, y'know? However when I was at school I was a complete bonehead! I'd find it hard to read a lot of the material they gave in class and outright hated writing and grammar lessons. And I was always imagining different things, I never really focused on the teacher's lessons or anything. I was told that some of my classmates didn't even think that I would get past high-school.

There's a lot in deciding who is smart and who is not. A lot of the issues that students have are simple barriers or developmental issues that they haven't grown out of. Things like dyslexia, attention deficity disorder, or even an early fear of math. And there are a lot of issues with standardized testing, because many students learn and study in different ways, and if teachers aren't aware or open to these different types of learning methods, how are students supposed to excel?

Add onto that a lot of immigrant children don't even know English, so how are they supposed to learn in a classroom? One of the issues with the "No Child Left Behind" Act is that it rewards schools that perform well in academic standardized testing, but when a lot of students from poor immigrant families perform poorly because of a lack of education or the language barrier, the school and the entire district suffer the consequences. Ultimately the children are being taught material from the SATs and standardized testing for the sake of passing the exams only!

Re:Shows the failures of socialism

[spicate]

This proves the point, that when ever someone cries "the government should do something" the answer is probably NO Say what? For the most part, the countries that are beating the pants off of us on test scores have excellent PUBLIC education systems.

In fact, from what I can tell, most have fewer private schools than the United States.

Cue The Moaning

[MadMacSkillz]

Let loose the slashdot moaning about how bad the public education system is... regardless of the fact that the average slashdotter wouldn't last two days as a teacher. Boo hoo, the parents and administration won't support me and none of the kids want to learn, and I'm somehow supposed to motivate them. Welcome to public education. It's HARD to teach. Here's some good advice for anyone - unless you've actually done a person's job, shut the hell up. And yes, I HAVE taught. At one point in time I taught gifted 4th and 5th graders how to program, years ago. Some of those kids are now in college, studying computer programming. So I've actually DONE something. You want to change public education? Triple teacher salaries to dramatically increase competition for jobs and radically improve the quality of teachers, and change USA culture so that parents and kids respect education (good luck.) Though since we seem to value money so much, increasing teacher salaries might have the same effect.

Do you also own a cat with a diamond collar?

[CFD339]

I'm just curious here, because it sounds like the next thing you'll be talking about is your superweapon and plan to repopulate the earth with your lycra jumpsuit clad workers if only you can stop that meddlesome Mr. Bond....

Seriously though -- I'm sure half the people reading this on /. found school similarly boring. Nonetheless, you are here as a result of your education and your own additional work. No point still being bitter, yes?

Re:Do you also own a cat with a diamond collar?

[Daengbo]

No point still being bitter, yes?
I'm not the original poster, but I'll still answer your question: No. I'm bitter that I lost a lot of my childhood by sitting in a prison of the mind, wasting my time instead of doing something better with my life.

I'm not on Slashdot because of my time in school. I'm here because I value continuing education. Don't laugh.

Except for about four years of my schooling (one in primary, one in middle, and two in high) where I was given a chance to self-educate, I spent my time in school alternately at the top of the class or rebelling. Those times when I was self-paced, I completed a couple of years' coursework at a time. For anyone with an IQ above 130, public school is an undeniable waste of time. I'd even say that it's a waste of several hours a day for the average student. Not much goes on in school except crowd control, lunch, and socializing.

I have had a few teachers who pushed me to my limit and were educated enough to lead me, but most were just average and knew little about their subjects. The textbook was always a better source of information than the average teacher, and I didn't have to waste fifty hours of my life to get through it at a snail's pace. My time on Slashdot educates me better than my time in school did, though the signal/noise ratio has gone down in the last few years.

I understand you'll see this post as egotistical and smug, but I feel qulified to comment on this story (and your post) because

• My IQ was well above 145, just as TFA's chief subject was;
• I was not allowed to skip grades, either; and
• I stated the facts in my post as I remember them, without embellishment or hyperbole.

Re:Do you also own a cat with a diamond collar?

[glarbl_blarbl]

I too still feel bitter about the utter waste of my childhood at the hands of the state school system. I was identified as "gifted" early on, was reading at a sixth grade level in first grade and twelfth by the sixth. Of course, once I was identified as gifted nothing was done about it until Odyssey of the Mind in fifth grade (which was fun, but no substitute for a challenging curriculum). I remember learning about similes and metaphors on an annual basis. I remember "learning" long division four times (and of course I haven't used it in more than a decade).

After I took the SAT in seventh grade (and scored similarly to an average senior that year), I was allowed to skip eighth grade. There were upsides and downsides, and I'm fairly happy about where I am now -- but it's not for everyone. I lost a lot of friends and there seemed to be a higher asshole to polite person ratio in my graduating class.

I took a self-paced English course the summer after my freshman year. I finished a semester's worth of work in two weeks. I'm still pissed off about all of that wasted time. I could probably have learned a couple of languages, I would probably be better at math.. Hell, I could have become even more of a virtuoso guitarist if I had started music lessons a couple of years earlier ;) .

I've had this discussion with many of my genius friends, and this attitude is pretty much universal among them. Yes, the school system is nearly useless for all ends of the spectrum. In my cynical moments I imagine that it's a plot to keep the country stupid and docile while they turn the Republic into a fascist shadow of its original promise.

Re:Do you also own a cat with a diamond collar?

[b1ufox]

Well i completely agree but from someone who is an Indian citizen and thus an Indian student, i ll try to present the unknown half of the story.you may call it what you feel like, but your story reminds me of my school days and after math of education system in India.

During my primary standard school i use to finish my whole syllabus before the start of the new term.I am not a genius neither did i take an IQ test, nor do i think i have an IQ of 145+ but i like studying books in my free time.Science was the most easiest and trivial subject to me.As a sidenote for many /.ers, India has an education system which forces you to put more emphasis on marks and not understanding. This leads to mugging and poor understanding of the subject.I ll admit mugging when i was a kid, cuz this is how we all are brought up.Though i had to mug for grades, i never liked it.

After school i went to college for my bachelors in Computers.I realised within one week that i cannot mug anymore somehow. I felt attending classes was a waste of my time. Attending practicals which force you to work rather than learn was a torture. As expected i failed miserably at my grade in my first year of college. That was shock to me.But soon i realised grades do not matter, what matters more is my own satisfaction. Why should i follow the path which makes me feel knowledgeless. Honestly i chose to stop following the stupid rules in college, got one of the lowest marks in the class but managed to get through. I remember being touted as one of the idiot students who do not know a thing about their major.duh... it hurts when those words are from your faculty.Reason being i never liked the idea of sitting at back bench and asking questions which don't make sense. I would prefer reading books and breaking my computer, and personally i learnt more this way.luckily i managed to pass somehow.

Twist of fate, as it seems.My first job after college turned out to be a R&D job where i work as a virtualization hacker full time along with some stints on High Performance computing. And this all makes sense to me.I always liked challenges, and this job is a challenge.I don't regret not following the herd but what i do regret is low grades i got. I know now it may not matter but somehow it hurts.

I hope in US you people get good enough grades for following your heart at colleges?

Godspeed and good luck.

Re:Do you also own a cat with a diamond collar?

[Bob Gelumph]

What's the definition of genius today, anyway?
I remember something like it used to be based on an IQ 160 or higher, but does it have anything to do with actual achievement, or just potential?

Re:Do you also own a cat with a diamond collar?

[Inverted Intellect]

For anyone with an IQ above 130, public school is an undeniable waste of time. I have to disagree with you on that. For me it was not a waste of time. It was actively harmful. I got extremely good grades about the first six years of elementary, degrading after that, going into mediocrity and failure later on. You see, I never learned discipline because I wasn't given assignments that challenged me early on. This is also due to a lack of drive on my part, but the school system is also to blame as they never thought I might need a different kind of help. When I started getting mediocre grades, I was described as a "bright, promising student who needs to live up to his potential." I kept completing the occasional assignment which I happened to have an interest in in a competent manner, prompting more of that kind of comment. I've largely failed to live up to this supposed potential.

Re:Do you also own a cat with a diamond collar?

[Brickwall]

I have to echo your comments, and would like to add some perspective of my own. I too was a gifted child, who could read before I started kindergarten. I remember getting our first "Dick and Jane" type reader in Grade 1 (that would be in 1961; yes, I'm a geezer). The first page was a picture of a young boy with the single word "Sandy" underneath. (IIRC, the entire book introduced some 50+ words.) The teacher took five minutes to go over that page, during which time I read the entire book. When she asked me what I thought of Sandy, I babbled on for thirty seconds about the boy, his sister, his dog, his teacher, etc. The teacher hauled me out of my seat, pulled me onto her lap, and gave me a few smacks on the ass - not at all painful, just a little humiliating. "That'll teach you to read ahead!" she said. In fact, it didn't, but it did teach me that school was not all concerned that I progress as quickly as possible.

In Grade 3, I was skipped (they compressed 3 and 4 into one year for the five of us - four girls and me). The next year, I started Grade 5 - in a class with my older sister which continued until Grade 9, an affront for which she has never entirely forgiven me. I was also a year younger than all the other boys in the class, which meant that I was always the smallest and lightest kid in the class; since the iron code of the schoolyard prevented me from playing games with my age peers in Grade 4, I was always chosen in the last few for sports and games. Doubtless, this contributed to my smart mouth and my rep as "class rebel".

All this was endured within the public school system. In Grade 10, I was admitted to a boys' school in Toronto, modeled on the English schools such as Eton. No phony egalitarianism there! There were two types of classes (or "forms" as they were known) - A-forms, and B-forms. The A-forms were considered the brighter students, and we took seven academic subjects. The B-forms were the lesser lights, and they took 6 classes and a mandatory study hall. In addition, on every report card (of which there were five a year), my ranking in the class ("2 out of 22") was duly noted. Unlike Orwell, I mostly enjoyed my years there; I was still bored from time to time, but many of my classmates had also been skipped, and so I was generally surrounded by bright kids. It also helped that the school teams were Under-15's, Under-16's, etc., so my competition for sports teams was against kids my own age, which helped soothe some of the inferiority I had experienced in public school. (It's no fun always being the shrimp!)

Now I have two daughters, 10 and 13, who have both been accepted into the PACE program at our local school. (PACE is the "Program for Academic and Creative Extension") Now, instead of skipping kids, they are brought together with other bright kids of their own age, where they explore subjects in greater depth than the standard classes. Frankly, I think this works better than skipping them. While both girls admit they are bored from time to time, they also work on more projects and have developed a greater understanding of the material than the standard stream allows. And neither of them have suffered from the social problems that I felt; both have lots of friends and seem well integrated into their classes.

From my perspective, I think the girls' school is doing a good job of challenging them academically without short-changing them socially. As I noted, they are bored at times, but I think all good students will experience those moments; I'm sure there are times their classmates wish my girls were picking something up a little faster.

Of course, this is just one school board, and I don't know what's going on in other boards in Ontario, let alone in Canada. I won't even try to comment on any other country's system.