Slashdot Mirror


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?"

37 of 815 comments (clear)

  1. of course by networkBoy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Does No Child Left Behind mean that nobody can get ahead, either? Yes.
    --
    whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    1. Re:of course by netruner · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --



      DISCLAIMER: This post was not checked for speling and grammar- if you complain- you're a whiner
    2. Re:of course by UserChrisCanter4 · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

    3. Re:of course by Usquebaugh · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    4. Re:of course by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    5. Re:of course by MurphyZero · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Our founding fathers removed the guys in charge. Be American. Vote incumbents out.
    6. Re:of course by thrawn_aj · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

    7. Re:of course by Loconut1389 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    8. Re:of course by Bluesman · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

      --
      If moderation could change anything, it would be illegal.
  2. No Child Left Behind doesn't matter by faloi · · Score: 4, Interesting

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

    --
    "It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education." -Albert Einstein
    1. Re:No Child Left Behind doesn't matter by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    2. Re:No Child Left Behind doesn't matter by clragon · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.
  3. Answering the hypothetical question by A+beautiful+mind · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.
    --
    It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
    Be yourself no matter what they say
  4. Well, hang on. by seebs · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
  5. Nothing has really changed by overshoot · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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.

    --
    Lacking <sarcasm> tags, /. substitutes moderation as "Troll."
  6. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  7. Fail! by uberjoe · · Score: 4, Funny
    Failing our Geniuses?

    Well my school sure failed me!

    --

    The days of the digital watch are numbered.

  8. Hold up, Dude! by overshoot · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Lacking <sarcasm> tags, /. substitutes moderation as "Troll."
  9. It's still the parent's responsibility. by geekd · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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

  10. First Hand Experience by Token_Internet_Girl · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    --
    Sure baby, I'll give you my phone number...in Hex
  11. Obligitory "Incredibles" quote: by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

    --
    ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
  12. No Child Left Behind by ArchAngelQ · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  13. Re:Kids today by VicarofCletus · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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.

  14. To flesh that out some by homey+of+my+owney · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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"

    1. Re:To flesh that out some by smittyoneeach · · Score: 4, Funny

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

      --
      Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
    2. Re:To flesh that out some by yurnotsoeviltwin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:To flesh that out some by iamhassi · · Score: 4, Interesting

      "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.

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
    4. Re:To flesh that out some by adamruck · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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

      --
      Selling software wont make you money, selling a service will.
    5. Re:To flesh that out some by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

      --
      -1 Uncomfortable Truth
    6. Re:To flesh that out some by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    7. Re:To flesh that out some by pclminion · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

  15. Tracking by Descalzo · · Score: 4, Interesting
    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.

    --
    I cried real tears when Li Mu Bai died.
  16. Best vs. brightest by benhocking · · Score: 4, Informative

    "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.

    --
    Ben Hocking
    Need a professional organizer?
  17. Failing our teachers as well by solar_blitz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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!

  18. Re:Do you also own a cat with a diamond collar? by Daengbo · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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.
  19. Re:Do you also own a cat with a diamond collar? by glarbl_blarbl · · Score: 4, Insightful
    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.

    --
    I use friend/foe to signal strong [dis]agreement instead of mod points. What else are f/f good for?
  20. Re:Do you also own a cat with a diamond collar? by Inverted+Intellect · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.