Helping Some Students May Harm High Achievers

palegray.net writes "According to a new study performed by the Thomas B. Fordham Institute in Washington, increased emphasis on helping students with a history of lower academic achievement results in lower performance for high achievers. This trend appears to be related to the No Child Left Behind Act. Essentially, programs designed to devote a large number of resources to assisting students who are deemed to be 'significantly behind' leave little room for encouraging continued academic growth for higher-performing students."

Comments

Death Coil

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, sorry to say it but DUH. Anybody who has ever gotten decent grades could tell you this. Not really new news.

Re:Death Coil

[nine-times]

Yeah, I think lots of people have been saying this for years. It's completely obvious, but unfortunately some people won't listen to even the most obvious things until you can say, "a study proved it." And of course, you never hear about any studies that prove obvious but politically-incorrect ideas.

Anyway, yes, of course, kids don't simply raise themselves. Smart kids, dumb kids, it doesn't matter, they need people to pay attention to them, teach them, tell them what to do, be given examples of what to be, etc. Attention is a limited resource, and the more attention to pay to some kids, the less you pay to others. So if you pay all your attention to the problem kids and the dumb kids, the well-behaved kids and the smart kids suffer.

And no, really, the smart kids don't take care of themselves. All kids need attention.

Re:Death Coil

[konohitowa]

This was true when I was in school 20+ years ago. The reason this is deemed news is because it makes people with an axe to grind (i.e. people who are against NCLB) all warm and angry inside.

Re:Death Coil

[ryanemitchell]

It's completely obvious, but unfortunately some people won't listen to even the most obvious things until you can say, "a study proved it."

I don't think this is quite true -- if it were, there wouldn't be so many morons rubbing organic garlic on their feet to try to get rid of their headaches. "Obvious" is subjective, and can often be misleading. If there were more people that evaluated studies before making a decision, the world would be a much better place (and, no, we wouldn't have the "No Child Left Behind" act.

Re:Death Coil

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

The plural of anecdote is not data, if you think that we should lead our lives by what we consider common sense, then you're really barking up the wrong tree. Common sense is neither common nor sensible.

Re:Death Coil

[nine-times]

The plural of anecdote is not data

And the plural of "someone else's glib quote" is not "argument". Or do you prefer glib quotes to both data and anecdotes?

PS- my post didn't have any anecdotes in it

Re:Death Coil

[maxume]

Sort of. I would not suggest studying the effects of sticking your hand in a blender, simply deciding it is a bad idea is sufficient. This line of reasoning extends to other things that are somewhat more germane to living your life (savings are better than debt, don't screw dirty whores, heroin is nasty, etc).

Re:Death Coil

[fprintf]

This is common, but from a kid's perspective, most would rather be sitting quietly or reading a book than doing more *work* than everyone else has to do.

My son is in 6th grade and has been at the top of his class since he joined school. He finished the No Child Left Behind mastery tests usually in 20 minutes or less even when the test was supposed to take between 60 and 90 minutes. Even given that, he scored in the 97th - 99th percentile for scores for the last three years (4th, 5th, 6th grade). He gets his smarts from his mother, but gets his motivation, or lack of it, from me. :-)

I say all this because my experience with him and some of his classmates is exactly as described. In fact, we worry that the smart kids are rushing to get done just so they can get to the free time or reading time that much earlier. It almost becomes a race. If it wasn't for the fact that my son's scores are high, we'd have done somethign about it. The thing is, he was asked to be in an academically gifted program and he hated it, not because it wasn't interesting, but because it was more work!

I can see your point, but until we return to a policy of creating "smart kid" classes and "not-so-smart kid" classes, instead of the enforced homogeneous classes we have nowadays, it is unlikely that teachers will be able to cope with students that move at such different speeds. They try all kinds of strategies, like pairing the smart kids together into challenging reading groups, or assigning targeted homework, but 80% of the day is done together with everyone.

Re:Death Coil

[mrand]

I can see your point, but until we return to a policy of creating "smart kid" classes and "not-so-smart kid" classes

But ... but ... but, that's not fair! No kidding. It most certainly is not fair to the smart kids to be stuck in a classroom where the teacher is forced to spend all their time trying to get the struggling kids up-to-minimal level.

Re:Death Coil

[russotto]

So what do you do with high achieving students who have behavioral issues?

As with Prince Albert in a can, you LET THEM OUT.

Re:Death Coil

[stewbacca]

The plural of "the plural of anecdote is not data" is, "Man, I must be on slashdot today, because their they go using that stupid cliche again."

Re:Death Coil

[Temujin_12]

Get someone to say on TV that "studies have proven" it, and everyone will do it. Sorry, I had to chime in on a pet peeve of mine. What bothers me about this is that it seems like a significant portion of the population abandon all critical or independent thinking once the magical phrase "studies have proven" or "they've proven" is used, even when no context describing the "study" or who "they" are is given. I know several people who liberally weave these phrases into conversation or debates with the implied meaning that since "they've proven it" the matter is beyond debate. If you stop them and question who "they" are and/or the validity of the "proof" they become very defensive (even when your questioning is genuine and non combative). It makes for very narrow-minded and frustrating discussions.

Now, if a scientific study has been made and has conclusive results (which happens less often than we'd like to think), you should initially have reason to believe it. But stopping there is just intellectually lazy (or ignorant). You should look into the context of the "study". Find out who "they" are (and more to the point, who's funding them). Find out how strong the correlation was (you've studied statistics haven't you?). Find out if there is a consensus in the scientific community about this "study". Find out if there are any conflicting studies. Etc.

I'm not saying you need to detailed analysis on every study you come across. All it takes is a few minutes of searching to gain a better understanding of the context that surrounds a "study" (assuming the referenced "study" even occurred in the first place). Doing this, you can avoid many of the conspiracies or frauds out there that prey on the intellectually lazy.

Re:Death Coil

[Kiaser Zohsay]

Any teacher will tell you that school is not fair. Any adult with a job will tell you that life is not fair. If young people get their heads around that sooner, the world will be a better place. Still not fair, just better.

Re:Death Coil

[ChromaticDragon]

I think your pet peeve is part of a larger problem. For whatever reason, we seem (as a society) very prone to simplification. It may very well be that most of us cannot entertain complex issues. However, this behavior seems just as well represented among the highly intelligent and the humble norm. That is, it seems to be a special thing to be able (or to have been trained?) to accommodate shades of grey or conflicting data.

With regards to scientific studies, people (primarily journalists?) summarize things down to one or two points. We all see this sort of thing all the time for presentations and management discussions. The only problem is when we forget all that is lost in such consolidation. Furthermore, when the summaries of successive studies contradict each other people tend to lose faith (?) in studies at all and drift back to traditions, etc. (going to get some garlic now...)

With regards to children and education, I see this in the ever present glorification of "THE COMPUTER". It is amazing how consistent this is in today's cartoons for kids. There is incredibly often some version of the classic Delphi Oracle mascarading as a Computer. A Computer which knows all and will answer all - usually in simple straightforward answers. This doesn't seem to bode well for our overall ability to execute critical thinking.

Re:Death Coil

[Digital End]

Yes, there should be smart kid classes, yes there should be dumb kid classes.

I have no intrest in seeing the next rocket scientist kid slowed down by the next welfare case.

If they want equality, they should read a book... rather, they should have parents capable of raising them to read books.

Not fair? Screw fair. Fair is for naked hippys. Teaching children it's better/easier/more sympathy to be stupid then it is to be smart is part of the cancer that is making failed adults.

Re:Death Coil

[Mongoose Disciple]

So one conservative over a million liberals makes it exclusively conservative? The Teachers' Unions, the current Congress, the Dept of Education all like to bitch that they need more money to execute NCLB, but no one is getting rid of it, are they?

Keep in mind, NCLB is an absolute piece of crap that was doomed from the start. I think its only point was to show that the US public education system is so broken by a Teachers' Union who won't allow any progressive change, that only fools would send their kids to public schools. Luckily for the public schools, they create a ready supply of fools.


NCLB was also passed by a Republican congress. :)

Pretty much every teacher I know (which is more than a few -- every kid in my generation of my extended family except me became a teacher) was very vocal about NCLB being crap and doomed by the start. I'm not sure if the teacher's unions were in that boat in general, but I'd need to see some evidence to believe you can lay NCLB in their lap either.

Re:Death Coil

[mblase]

He gets his smarts from his mother, but gets his motivation, or lack of it, from me. :-) ... The thing is, he was asked to be in an academically gifted program and he hated it, not because it wasn't interesting, but because it was more work!

Sounds like this one is your department. :-) Take it from me, he can run on natural smarts for a good number of years but sooner or later he'll need to learn to work hard, too. I nearly sank myself in college because I was used to coasting through high school, and never learned the value of visiting my teachers outside class, collaborating with other students, or studying together with my classmates.

Re:Death Coil

[Surt]

Most studies are government funded. For some odd reason, it is hard to get a politically incorrect study funded.

Re:Death Coil

[DrgnDancer]

Common sense isn't very common, but it is sensible. For the most part, common sense means logic applied at an everyday level. The problem is that logic applied at the everyday level is not always sensible because we often lack the evidence to make a reasonable conclusion. The obvious example of this is policy like "no child left behind". It may seem quite logical to a person with limited experience in schooling children to assume that trying to push the the worst performing students is more important than trying to push the best performing students. After all, the worst performing students are failing to meet the minimum standard, and the best performing students are not. It makes sense to oil the squeaky wheel after all. The smart kids can take care of themselves. Except that is clearly not the case from inside of the educational system. Smart kids may be easily able to maintain the minimum with very little attention, but they are never going to reach their potential. If our best and brightest fail to meet their potential, we lose in the long run even if we do bring more of our students up to a minimal acceptable level.

To personalize it let's look at an issue in which both sides claim to have common sense on their sides. Gun control:

Typical Gun Control Position Common Sense: It's common sense that we limit ownership of guns after all. In my personal experience most people don't know how to use them properly and are more likely to hurt themselves than an attacker. Making guns available easily and their unlicensed possession anything other than a crime simply encourages criminals to have them. Plus they are a danger in houses with small children. There is just no good reason for people to own some guns. Hunting rifles and maybe shotguns, sure, but assault rifles and handguns?

Typical Non-Gun Control Position Common Sense: It's common sense that we allow unrestricted access to firearms. Most of the people I know are comfortable with their weapons and have been using them for years. If we make guns illegal, then only criminals will have guns. Taking away my ability to defend myself makes much less sense than trying to keep criminals from getting guns that they are clearly going to get their hands on anyway. My kids know better than to mess with the guns. I've been teaching them to respect (and use) weapons since they were old enough to talk and walk.

Both of these position are perfectly valid from the point of view of the person stating them. They're common sense based on logic and the evidence that the person in question sees day to day. Common sense is not always common, and even when it seems sensible to you, or you and your friends, it may not always seems so to an outsider.

Re:Death Coil

[shaitand]

Common sense should be used to fill in the blanks, you can't wait for data before making some decisions.

Fortunately in the gun control issue we do not have to rely on common sense. Analysis of locales with gun restrictions shows in increase in violent crime, overall crime, and deaths. Locales that relax restrictions see a decrease in all of the above. True relaxed restrictions result in more gun related incidents but since there is less violence overall that is really beside the point.

Re:Death Coil

[blighter]

Really? It could be argued that a public school law signed less than 7 years ago is "largely responsible for our corrupt, money hungry and materialistic society today"?

On the assumption that, what, its effects began immediately after enactment and the world is ruled by people 25 and younger? (Since that would make them 18 and younger 7 years ago and thus just barely plausibly affected by the act.)

We'll leave alone the assumption that our society is more corrupt, money hungry and materialistic today than ever before.

In our efforts to "convince society that critical thinking and evaluation skills" are important, we might should start with yours, which seem to be nearly nonexistent.

Re:Death Coil

[Belial6]

The idea of putting the dumb students in with the smart students would likely work if we still had the one room school house, where you had every grade level from 1st through 12th all in the same room. Then the slow students would do the work with the younger kids, and the smart students would do the work with the older kids. Part of this whole problem stems from our extreme age segregation in the classrooms.

Re:Death Coil

[haystor]

Sure, individual tutors would be better. Wow, brilliant.

The problem today is that a lot of schools have something like 5 classes and kids are randomly assigned to all 5 classes. The slow or trouble kids drain the resources of the teachers. If you were to put the 30 smartest kids in the top class, even #1 and #30 would both be better off.

Teaching to the average of the high-achievers is a lot closer and more productive for #1 than teaching to the average of the slow performers, which is what is really going on.

Re:Death Coil

[Belial6]

Sorry, but the way you solve the problem of social promotion is not to screw the smart kids. You stop the problem of social promotion by just "STOP DOING THAT!" It is asinine to think that every kid is going to be able to be taught the same amount of information in 13 years. It's not even reasonable to expect every kid to learn the same amount in 1 year. Each year after that, the gap will grow.

NCLB IS social promotion. It is clearly a law that says no matter what resources have to be expended, we will not let any kid be more than 1 educational level below any other kid that is the same age.

Re:Death Coil

[LurkerXD]

I would have to say this is 100% true. I finished going through a magnet program at my local high school, and I have seen the pattern in both myself and other students. Because of the nature of the program, many of my peers were said 'smart students': they coasted through junior high, or were the top of their class. This magnet program was the first real academic challenge for a substantial chunk of us, myself included.

However, the ones that went on to become the top of my high school did differ from the others in their pre-high school preparation. The ones that did well in this environment were those that had been fully challenged and pushed to work hard beforehand. These students were not allowed to coast through on B grades; either their parents demanded they get straight As and/or they had gone through previous academic programs of a similarly high level of difficulty.

This only further illustrates the point of the article. Its not so much even that a lack of attention will prevent the smart kids from learning. In that much NCLB is correct - smart kids can indeed learn on their own. Actually, that's part what makes them smarter then their peers. Instead, neglecting gifted students will foster an attitude that the minimum is enough, and coasting through is ok. In other words, it encourages them to be lazy, and develops poor work habits later in life. I will be the first to say it is very painful when you don't learn these habits sooner rather then later.

No Child Left Behind

[dintech]

It's all about finance really. If you pay more teachers to teach smaller classes, most of these issues go away. The other thing is that children with learning disabilities get taught by themselves or in small groups because they are a special case. I would say the same should be available to gifted children.

Re:No Child Left Behind

[janeeja]

If you want the epitome of this 'one-size-fits-all' approach and witness its results upclose then please come to europe.

This fear of a middle-ages class-based school system that is encoded in every administrators head, has forged a bond inbetween civil servant and teacher so strong that they cannot be distinguished from another.

In fact this bond is so strong now that even the slightest form of desire for exellence is not just seen as an attack on the schoolsystem itself but also on the very fundaments of the society it's supposed to serve.

One giant self fulfilling prophecy if you ask me.

Re:No Child Left Behind

[nine-times]

No, really, it is largely about finance. You need a greater teacher/student ratio than most schools have.

See, because even if you want to separate kids out based on their gifts, you need someone to evaluate which kids are gifted at what. You can give them tests, but that will only tell you which kids do better on tests.

What it doesn't tell you is which kids are smart but unmotivated or bored, and therefore not bothering to try. It doesn't tell you which kids might have skills and assets that don't show up well on tests. It doesn't tell you which kids are just nervous and don't do well on tests. It doesn't tell you which kids are smart but have learning disabilities-- yes, 'learning disabled' has become code for stupid, but there are real learning disabilities.

For anyone to really know all that about students, someone needs to know the students. You can't really get to know the students well enough when you have 45 minutes a day per class with a class of 40 kids. You'd improve our education system immensely if teachers were given a couple hours a day with a class of 15 kids, maybe with opportunities for private tutoring.

Of course, you can't accomplish that without hiring loads of new teachers, and you can't hire loads of new teachers without spending a lot more money. Plus, in order to attract good teachers, you might have to pay them better. I think I'd probably like being a teacher, but not if it means I'll get paid 1/4 of what I get paid now.

Re:No Child Left Behind

[Teran9]

Education isn't about challenging the students or paying teachers more. It is about imparting the ability to acquire and process information in order to understand and create knowledge.

Few teachers are taught how to think much less how to teach that ability so all they can pass on is WHAT to think.

When students do not have the thought processing skills to understand what they are being told they get frustrated or bored and the transfer of knowledge fails.

Re:No Child Left Behind

[aussie_a]

Well if they did that there would be classes with mostly whites and classes with mostly blacks. Which on face value would look racist. Face value is all that matters.

Re:No Child Left Behind

[Jellybob]

My friends came from all walks of life and I respected their opinions and helped them when I could (homework, food, money). Because of the company I kept no one tried to fight me because I was smart and had good grades. I never resorted to calling anyone stupid. And you learn there is a lot of different smart.

Sounds a bit like my time in school. I was smart (but not the brightest by a long way), and wanted to do well, but that never stopped me getting on with other people.

Not only did it give me a better perspective on life, teaching me that just because you're not the most intelligent person doesn't mean you can't be interesting, it also went a long way to keeping me out of trouble. It helps if people know that even if you probably wouldn't put up much of a fight, some of your friends would be quite happy to jump in and change the balance a bit.

Re:No Child Left Behind

[nine-times]

Seems like comparing our schools to asian schools would have such a large number of factors that it'd be impossible to isolate single factors to find simple causal relationships. And one of the biggest factors-- culture-- is one that you can't really control very predictably without creating an oppressive regime filled with propaganda.

So I may read that book, but I'd still like to express some doubts that it will give the solution for the US education system. As far as I've ever seen, the education system in the US serves the lowest common denominator. Anyone who doesn't quite fit the mold, even if it's by way of excellence, is punished and pushed out, or else ignored.

And that's in places where the school system is supposed to be good. In places where it's bad, it's run down, understaffed, and under funded.

So though I'm not the sort of person to think that you can solve a problem by throwing money at it, I do think that a lack of qualified teachers is one of the big problems with our system. Both in terms of having too few teachers, and that the teachers we have aren't qualified enough. Spending more money won't necessarily fix the problem, but any solution will cost significant amounts of money.

The other big problem with education is the parents, but it's not clear what can be done about that.

Re:No Child Left Behind

[cp.tar]

Teachers won't become better teachers if they're paid more, they'll just be richer teachers. And smaller classes won't do a lick of good unless the teachers that are hired to staff all these new classrooms are good teachers.

Good teachers are often good at many other things as well. And they get fed up with poor pay and poorer working conditions and leave for better-paid and less stressful jobs.

Yes, you need good teachers. And you need to pay them well enough for them to want to remain teachers.

Paying them better will not improve existing teachers in a significant manner, but it will provide incentive for others to become teachers.

For inastance, here in Croatia, tram drivers are paid twice as much as teachers. And you need almost no qualifications whatsoever to drive a tram.
Teachers are the gutter of the possible jobs; very few people even consider it unless they either really want to teach or they haven't any other choice. There is no shortage of tram drivers, though; people are even willing to bribe someone to become tram drivers, and often they do so.

This is not the environment in which good teachers will have any reason to remain teachers, save for the fact they like the job. And that liking can be pushed aside when you get an opportunity to double your pay and halve your hassle. This is why many really good teachers I know no longer teach, and why many students I think would make good teachers don't even contemplate the possibility.

There are too few people even willing to teach, and therefore there are too few people to pick good teachers from.
It is not about employing a teacher and keeping him for life; it is about finding the best person for the job. And it requires hard work from the management, as well as competitive pay and benefits to maximize the size of the pool of people you choose from.

Teachers used to have respect. Nowadays, they do not.
At least a part of the problem is that the world has changed, and school systems have not.
This is why I want to found a private school... it's just that first I have to work other jobs before I can fund something like that.

Re:No Child Left Behind

[lju]

It's especially terrible when you have to pay for it (with higher taxes.)

Re:No Child Left Behind

[stewbacca]

I've lived and taught in Europe (Germany and England) and those school systems are much better than the US. What you described as being a problem in Europe, the fear of a class-based school system, is not a problem at all when compared to the US system. In the US, we are too afraid to say, "your child is done with school at age 16, because he/she needs to be a blue collar worker the rest of his/her life". They have no qualms doing that in Germany, and in England you have to pass the exams to continue past 16. No such thing here in touchy-feely US schools. EVERYONE should go to college, even if they don't have even 1% of the ability to do so.

Re:No Child Left Behind

[Anonymous Coward]

However, it's unpopular cause of having to employ more teachers, have more classrooms, etc. Yes, employing more people is clearly a terrible thing. It is not a terrible thing, it is unpopular because it is expensive and education taxes are very high already.

Teacher salaries, teacher pensions, additional facilities, additional maintenance on those facilities, new school construction⦠where do you think the money to pay for this will come from?

IMO the major problem is misappropriation of school funding. Here in NJ we throw tons of money at the âless fortunateâ(TM) districts and it all ends up in the wrong places, never making it to the students. Some examples of which are bus drivers getting 6 hours of overtime every month to charge their school provided cell phones, school administrators with a car and driver, exorbitant school administrator payouts like the Keansburg school superintendentâ(TM)s $740k retirement package with $120k annual pension.

Funding should be a fixed dollar amount per student, for every X number of students there should be one teacher, for every X number of students there should be another classroom, for every X classrooms there should be another school, for every X teachers there should be an administrator. It seems to me that if you followed a simple formula like this it would resolve a lot of problems.

Re:No Child Left Behind

[quanticle]

Well, everyone wants more teachers to be employed, but few are willing to pay the salaries.

I thought this was common knowledge

[Anonymous Coward]

No Child Left Behind is equivalent to No Child Gets Ahead.

This has always been blatantly obvious.

Re:I thought this was common knowledge

[Slashidiot]

I think every education policy needs to be aware of this: Gaussian Function. No matter how you do it, ALWAYS, there will be some brilliant children, some dumb children, and lots of mediocre children. And parents should be aware of this, children are just like any other group. A few winners, and a whole lot of losers, to quote George Carlin.

Just accept that not every child will be the next Nobel prize, and accept that maybe your child is one of the dumb ones, and will have to do simple manual work all his life.

If we leave some children behind, we can run much faster. Sad, but that's life.

Re:I thought this was common knowledge

[altoz]

So which is better? Some children getting left behind and some children getting ahead or no child getting left behind and no child getting ahead? Sadly, it seems like a zero-sum game.

Re:I thought this was common knowledge

[MoonBuggy]

I'd say that the payoff from helping a smart child to become a brilliant one is going to be much higher than making a dumb (that feels like a very unscientific term to use, but 'less intelligent' just sounds like politically correct crap, so feel free to correct me) child become a mediocre one.

That said, it is only a zero-sum game if you keep all the existing factors (primarily funding) the same. More teachers and more resources allow the classes to be split according to ability - everyone gets the help they need at their own level, more or less. One teacher stops the bottom end getting left behind, one teaches the average group, one challenges the top end.

Re:I thought this was common knowledge

[Tranzistors]

Think bit harder next time.
1. Gaussian Function is no god sent writing on the wall. If you only educate the very smart ones, you get two peaks - the very good, and very poor results (I've seen it in action).
2. > If we leave some children behind, we can run much faster.
And of course the ones behind will never become politicians, never be promoted to management, never let their computers become part of botnet etc.
3. Government guarantees education. Just because some people don't have the abilities to adapt to the teaching methods doesn't mean state can (should) just dich them.
4. What is it with this winners/losers mentality. I certainly didn't go to school to "compete for the prize", and if it comes with mockery of being called a loser, I despise it even more.

Re:Schools award mediocrity

[Swizec]

Never understood the issue with making people not feel inferior when it's so very fucking obvious that some people are simply superior to other people. It's just the way it is and always have been. Why are we trying to make everyone feel so bloody equal these days anyway?

I mean, if you're stupid or fat doesn't matter, you're still a good chap and there's nothing wrong with you. But if you're rich, smart or successful then you're a fucking pig for making everyone else feel inferior ... what the hell!?

In other news....

[EmagGeek]

Socialistic policies lead to uniform poverty. Story at 11.

I wonder if China and India similarly punish people for wanting to get ahead. Last I checked, our finest graduate programs are admitting higher and higher percentages of foreign high achievers due to a frightening lack of domestic ones. When are schools are more concerned with teaching junk science (global warming, polar bears, spotted owls), junk politics (socialism, marxism), and how to be spineless cowards, than they are with teaching math, science, history, and other factual subjects, it's not a surprise that we're falling farther and farther behind on the global scale.

Re:Frankly, that's the right compromise

[Ihlosi]

- because the smart kids can help themselves.

As long as they don't get constantly mobbed/beaten up/terrorized by their "inferior" peers.

Except when it comes to sports!

[Peter Cooper]

Interestingly, these sort of braindead policies never seem to apply to sports in schools. The focus is definitely on pushing and supporting the most athletic and physically skilled students, while those who are not good at sports are left to flail around and just do time. This makes a lot of sense, since not everyone /needs/ to be a hot football or tennis player.. but for some reason society feels that "everyone" has to be of average intelligence, which is just wrong (and totally impossible statistically).

Re:Expected

[ztransform]

I did terribly at sport at school. As a result I was not offered positions in any sports teams, and instead had to partake in "social sports" which were not competitive.

Did this affect me? Am I upset I wasn't treated as an equal, or giving copious amounts of extra coaching? Sure, I'd have loved to be talented at sports when I was young, but the fact was that I wasn't.

Turns out, later in life, I discovered an enjoyment for sports. I go to the gym, ride my bicycle, have a go at things.

All adults have the opportunity to work on something they didn't enjoy as kids. They can start reading history books, or re-learn some basic mathematics. That's the beauty of being an adult!

So why force kids into something they don't want at a young age? All the teachers will get is additional hostility and resistance.

Re:Better educate the masses

[Opportunist]

While generally a good idea, it is basically a tool to keep the poor poor. Why? Allow me to elaborate.

What schools do participate in something like NCLB? Public schools. Why? Because they get no money if they don't. Why can private schools simply ignore it and continue a policy of pushing gifted pupils? Because they don't care about pennies from the state, they care about big bucks from mom and dad.

So what happens to someone who is bright but poor? He's in a NCLB school, being bored and finishing with a degree that ain't worth jack because the dunce next to him has the same degree. Sure, the dunce had to work hard for it while the bright child spent most of his time slacking, the net result is the same: A worthless degree.

Re:Schools award mediocrity

[tyler.willard]

You shouldn't get an award because of your genes, but because of the work you put in. According to who? And why?

Actually, I shouldn't be arguing; if you're correct then I should be able to get a Nobel Prize just by trying really hard.

Stupid and lazy.

[Anonymous Coward]

Needless to say I don't believe in mixing the stupid and lazy with the bright and talented. Physical assault is just not on, even between kids. I had a separate-but-equal-based-on-intellect system in my own school. Classes were segregated into bright/average/challenged students. Or as you put it "bright and talented"/"stupid and lazy". The general result was that 50% of the schools resources was poured into 15-20% of the students. If you think that's fair that's your problem I for one will respectfully disagree. One more thing, you are right in that physical violence has no place in schools but you would do well to note that neither does intellectual snobbery. However hard it may be to believe, not everybody in the non-genius classes is stupid and lazy.

Re:Stupid and lazy.

[Anonymous Coward]

The general result was that 50% of the schools resources was poured into 15-20% of the students. What about when those in the bottom percentile put in far less effort than those in the top, regardless of how the funds are allocated. Makes more sense to invest a larger portion the funds in areas where it will be utilized to greater effect.

Re:Stupid and lazy.

[Anonymous Coward]

Not the same AC so I can only reply on the first question:

I was both, that is having an easy time in school and often being in fights (both starting and defending). I totally agree that violence is not something that should be in schools, but I don't think for a second that separating the "stupid" kids from the "bright" kids helps.

Also, really smart people often have a really hard time in school and kids with good/great marks != geniuses.

I think a bigger problem (and with a less obvious solution) is how to spot the bright people, and keep them motivated and interested during schools. I mean, high school teachers aren't members of that group of people and tend to see creative solutions as failure rather than brilliance.

Re:Stupid and lazy.

[jrminter]

The general result was that 50% of the schools resources was poured into 15-20% of the students. If you think that's fair that's your problem I for one will respectfully disagree.

I suggest that it is about return on investment. Resources invested in those who are motivated and and have at least a modicum of aptitude produce adults who go on to get good jobs and repay the cost in taxes that support others. I willingly support those efforts. Spending resources on those who don't give a rip or are clueless is money down a rat hole. As our economy continues to tank, we are going to have to make some tough, unpopular choices. I say spend the limited resources where they do the most good.

Re:Schools award mediocrity

[dave1791]

Well, no matter how bright you are, you won't be winning any contests without working hard. Being smart is like being good looking. Both are helpful and give you a competitive edge. You were lucky in the genetic lottery, but you still have to earn your place in the world.

Re:Frankly, that's the right compromise

[samael]

No, but as a smart kid you're already doing better than the dumb ones - you're going to get a degree without extra help on top of the regular schooling.

You'll notice from the article that the smart kids are _also_ improving, they're just not improving as much.

Re:Better educate the masses

[Anonymous Coward]

He's in a NCLB school, being bored and finishing with a degree that ain't worth jack because the dunce next to him has the same degree. Sure, the dunce had to work hard for it while the bright child spent most of his time slacking, the net result is the same: A worthless degree. The education ("degree") is not worthless just because other students got it. Life is not a zero-sum game. If the population at large is educated, the society will make smarter decisions and the employers will have more useful employees.

I think every student should feel challenged and inspired in school, but the greatest emphasis should be placed on the education of the whole population instead of finding the superstars.

Re:this is why i am a mean teacher

[Opportunist]

You sound a bit like my French teacher. Are you by any chance female and your name starts with a K?

75% failure sounds an aweful lot. I don't know how to say that... but 75% of your pupils being stupid sounds a bit less likely than them being unable to learn anything front you...

Re:Fits with my experience

[Psiren]

Surely the parents should play a part here too? I wasn't exactly a genius at school, although probably above average. But my parents did their best to support my interests, ensuring that I had ample opportunity to apply myself. I'm not talking about financially here, although having money helps. I'm talking about spending time with your kids, helping them to help themselves. If I had a "high achieving" child, I certainly wouldn't expect the school to take on full responsibility for their education. That's just lazy parenting.

Re:Schools award mediocrity

[Opportunist]

And yet some people claim school doesn't prepare you for life. Didn't that teach you that it's not good, hard work and excellence that gets rewarded but rather being obnoxious and shitting on everyone's work?

Isn't that a good prep for the average office? Tell me, who gets promoted: The quiet, hard working guy who gets his job done on time and is generally really good at what he does, or the complaining loudmouth that nobody likes but at the same time nobody wants to get in his way?

Re:Schools award mediocrity

[Opportunist]

You shouldn't get an award because of your genes, but because of the work you put in.

When was the last time this worked anywhere in the real world, outside of a school. I can't remember a boss saying "Well, John, you really got us that million dollar contract, but I'll still promote Jeff over there, he didn't make the closing but he worked really hard on it for a month, you persuaded your customer in just a day, that's hardly an effort."

Priorities

[dlevitan]

The worst thing about not challenging the top end of the bell curve is that those people don't get pushed enough to get good study habits and thus be able to do well in college. I barely studied for anything in high school (even taking only AP classes my senior year) and had a hard time when I did need to study while in college. The only reason I did well in high school is because I could mostly do it without studying and because I could avoid a lot of the homework and still do well (>A average). At least I got some work ethic having to deal with 5 AP exams in one year. I'm scared to think how I would have turned out if my school did not offer that many AP classes.

The major question that the US needs to answer is do we a) prioritize the high end of the bell curve to push the really smart kids or b) prioritize the low end of the bell curve to at least establish a minimum education standard. In an ideal world, the parents should be pushing their kids to at least be at the minimum and schools would not be afraid of saying "You fail". Unfortunately, in the US this is not the case and thus the question remains.

If we do want to prioritize the high end, that means really pushing kids and funneling money into college level course availability (and not community college but actual hard classes). This would, in an ideal world, make sense because the parents should be able to help get their kids to a minimum level but they shouldn't be expected to know enough about advanced topics. But, this would require hiring many teachers who are much smarter or at least more advanced than the teachers today which means that any attempt to push the boundaries will never work.

Re:Better educate the masses

[Opportunist]

The problem is that his degree is seen as worthless by a potential employer because every dimwit can get it. Actually, if the general population was well educated, any degree would instantly be worthless, because it could no longer be used as a measurement of your skill.

But that is not the case, it has never been and it will never be. Not all people are equally good at learning. And to make matters more complicated, not everyone is equally good at learning the same skills. That's what a degree should show.

When everyone can get the same degree, no matter whether they can actually acquire a certain skill, the degree is no longer useful as a tool to determine whether someone has certain skills, making the degree worthless. Especially when there are people who have a degree (from a private school) that can be used to measure whether someone has the skills. Because this school can actually "leave children behind" and avoid passing pupils that shouldn't pass.

Thankfully

[Derosian]

Those of us who have lived through these policies and understand how detrimental they are to the school system will be able to support change in the school system. I for one would rather my child be segregated so that he can get the attention he needs. Whether he ends up in the low end of the system or the high end. As long as both systems get the same funding then it shouldn't be a problem.

Re:Also in the news

[SpeedyDX]

I realize this was meant to be a semi-serious funny comment, but I disagree with it. "No shit" beliefs change throughout time, and I don't think we are fit to judge what should and should not be studied. By condemning these types of studies, you are advocating a form of restriction in the freedom of academic scholars to pursue their academic interests. This is never a good thing.

Further, this isn't really a "no shit" issue. The theory behind helping struggling students is that struggling students need help, while those who excel can manage to do well by themselves. In fact, many people in /. post that when they were themselves in high school, they had levels of knowledge above and beyond their high school teachers. What significant, tangible benefits could these excelling students have in their high school teachers giving them more attention? These excelling students have already proven themselves to have a willingness and affinity to study subjects beyond course material on their own.

So while I realize that your comment was supposed to illicit some humour out of the submission, I don't agree with the particular stance conveyed. Academic freedom is highly treasured and should not be curbed in the name of "usefulness" by some arbitrary measure. This study did provide some insight - that excelling students do need encouragement and that the current strategy is not working. While this concept may have seemed "obvious" to some, that opinion is meaningless without some evidence to back up that stance. This study provides that evidence.

Student motivation and teachers

[tucuxi]

As many others have pointed out, this was very much to be expected. It requires exceptionally skilled teachers to be able to motivate a whole spectrum of students at the same time.

In a traditional classroom, communication has a star-shaped topology with the teacher in the center. The teacher is a very scarce resource, and although broadcasting is available, the broadcast can be tuned to either low-bandwidth or high-bandwidth students. If only low-bandwidth broadcasts are used, those which could go faster will get bored real quick.

There are all sorts of proposals out there to break the star-shaped topology and get students to collaborate and motivate each other; however, the teacher will still be a scarce resource, because all proposals require a level of coordination which will itself require time&effort.

Proposed solutions (all of them well-known):

• More teachers = more time-per-student
• Better teachers = greater student motivation, broader spectrum
• External support (from parents, society to teacher's efforts) = motivated students and teachers

News at eleven...

Re:Frankly, that's the right compromise

[Opportunist]

Oh joy, so I get to spend my afternoons, evenings and weekends hunting down books in libraries while the washout gets it spoonfed, to end up with the same degree he does.

Is there some opt-in to be dumb?

Re:this is why i am a mean teacher

[gunnarstahl]

What an arrogant view! And you are what, a teacher? Ymbkm!

This "if you aren't going to try your best" shit is something you could stuff to adults, not to children. Try to remember how you have been in school.

There is a reason why kids aren't allowed to drink / drive / vote and stuff. They are not _reasonable_.

And if you just focus on the brilliant ones, then maybe, just maybe you are not really a teacher.

Re:Better educate the masses

[192939495969798999]

Of course, I mean only an idiot would think it makes sense to only help the idiots. Are these the same people trying to figure out why we have a shortage of engineers and innovation nowadays?

Also in the news

[Chrisq]

When sharing a cake, if you give more to the hungry students the portions for those who aren't hungry have to be smaller

Intelligent students are more empowered today...

[blahplusplus]

... the intelligent kids have fewer and fewer excuses with places like MIT offering their challenging courses for FREE - http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/web/home/home/index.htm

I'm getting tired of the "all the intelligent people are victims", what really needs to be done is to have good guidance counsellors and to know about these internet resources, many intelligent kids can get the help they need from professors on the net and whatnot now. They have all the ability, what they need most is to have a map to be pointed in the right direction.

How do you measure the success of teachers?

[wrook]

I just started teaching this year. I'm not young either. I gave up my programming job to teach English to Japanese students.

Here on /. we love to complain about bad programmers who can hide in a large organization, spewing out horrible code while management gives them raises. But think about teaching for a bit. Here you have a profession where the success of the students (and hence the teacher) can literally be manipulated by the teacher. You can intentionally give them questions they can't answer (because you never taught them) or you can give them all the answers to the test the day before.

So to combat this you get standardized testing. If too many people fail the standard tests, then the teacher is bad. But what does that do? It means that the smart teacher will teach only what's on the test. And they will ensure that each student can score well on the test, ability be damned. It's all about the test.

This creates a curriculum which is meaningless. Just a bunch of hoops to jump through in order for the teacher to get their bonus (they get bonuses here in Japan... Does that happen other places?) Got a bright student that actually wants to learn something relevant? -- "Shut up kid. Talking to you costs me my bonus. You can already pass the test." Got a student struggling that needs to understand? -- "Just frickin' memorize this damn thing, OK? I don't care that you can't use it in real life. You only need it for the exam. Got it?"

The gaming potential here is enormous. I'm actually surprised that my school doesn't operate like that. Although we are one of the lowest ranked schools in the prefecture. So perhaps lack of need to achieve test results makes life better here. Most of the teachers are amazing, actually.

But it really begs the question. How the hell do you measure the success of teachers? They hold all the cards and there's no obvious objective measure that I can see....

Re:How do you measure the success of teachers?

[Opportunist]

Well, in a world where you have to disclose your earnings, you could pay teachers according to the income of their former pupils. Would also solve the retirement problem immediately.

Re:Schools award mediocrity

[Swizec]

The problem with your line of thinking is assuming inferiority is absolute. It can only be judged in comparison with another individual. For example at maths I am inferior to my maths professor and so on.

Vouchers

[Dachannien]

This is one reason why school vouchers are so important, so that parents of smart kids can rescue them by putting them in a proper learning environment, regardless of their economic situation.

Re:Vouchers

[Anonymous Coward]

Vouchers are a horrible idea because the private schools receiving the voucher money will also be recipient to the strings attached to that money. In other words, it's quite likely the government would just turn around and say "If you want our money, then you must meet our standards and take our standardized tests."

A much better solution would be a tax credit for parents of children in private schools or home schoolers.

An even better solution would be to get the government out of the education business altogether.

Well, it WAS the goal after all...

[ladybugfi]

To quote the NYT article: "...law made it a goal to reduce the gap separating low-scoring, poor and minority students from higher-scoring white students."

So, while there is a major effort to get struggling kids better scores, which is very good, this goal of NARROWING the gap can only be achieved if the top students don't get even better scores.

Re:Schools award mediocrity

[tyler.willard]

Define "working hard". Then please illustrate why it should be the highest standard.

Especially since you bring up "genetic lottery". If succeeding for certain people in certain endeavors is effortless, does that make their successes any less valuable?

And how about the ancillary benefits to talented individual's achievements:

If Salk didn't find it difficult to find a polio vaccine would that diminish its utility?

If Homer just sat down and bashed out the Illiad in a weekend does that lessen it value?

While I personally laud "hard work", this idea of elevating effort over value smacks of the Protestant Work Ethic run amok.

Re:Schools award mediocrity

[Tranzistors]

But if you're rich, smart or successful then you're a fucking pig for making everyone else feel inferior ... what the hell!?

Problem with awards is that they promote certain qualities. Being smart suddenly becomes more important than being, for instance, helpful. Thus not-so-bright kids are demoralized. So, are these awards necessary?

Another problem is that reward becomes the motivation - ideally everyone wants to get the reward, but only the top few get it. So, if I am realistic and see, that I will only get near the top if I learn 16 hours a day, I fall in despair and see no motivation to be even good, because, it is "gold or bust" situation. Imagine that in your workplace only top 10 workers would get all the salaries and only way to get anything would be becoming one of them. Would you accept the system?

Re:What a surprise

[Crookdotter]

Another teacher here chiming in. I agree with the AC here - we are always focussed on the borderline kids - going from D to C. In my own defence I teach a few top sets here and there and if I've taught them one thing it's that it is a wonderful thing to be smart. There have been occasions where mixing lower ability kids with higher ability CAN help both groups, but when you're talking about the higher ability stuff you really need a class of smarts to bounce off each other. We award house points for good stuff. All my pupils know to get a bucketful of house points they should tell me something I don't know that is impressive in my subject. Some of my year 7's are reading wikipeadia articles on relativity now, and recalling parts too. Don't mix the good and the bad, and focus on the top more than anyone would be an ideal situation. Shame we don't live there.

Re:this is why i am a mean teacher

[Muad'Dave]

Thank you, too. I wish I had more teachers like you. I don't mind the stratification of the intellectual classes - it's one of those obviously true situations that's treated as the elephant in the room that no one sees.

Teaching Rote vs Encouraging Interest

[rperson]

In my middle school we had a gifted program. The program separated the students into three categories: Gifted, Above Average, and Normal. Because of scheduling the History class was composed of Gifted and Normal (no Above Average). The Normals in that class did better at history than the Above Average in the other History classes. I should note that it was the students who figured this out, the Non-Gifted ones at that.

The conclusion was that interest, more than anything, governed success and the enthusiasm and interest of the Gifted had infected the Normals. Allocating resources will only go so far but spreading interest will do more. Sadly NCLB leaves little room for a teacher to do so.

Spend money on teachers, no administration

[Shivetya]

Damn if I type this a thousand times.

Compare any big city school system, take the total dollars spent and divide it by the number of students. For some reason many consider that unfair and want to reduce the dollars used. Do the same for some county schools. If its anything like where I live the city is nearly 3x the cost per student and the grades are worse.

Why?

Admin and feel good people. In other words not hiring teachers but hiring more cronies of friends of politicians, family members, and feed good skill sets that have no bearing on real education. Some places have more grief counselors than nurses! Look at their class sizes compared to the county schools. If they are higher in the city and they are spending more money per student then start asking questions. Considering the disrepair some city schools are in its hard to believe it gets eaten up by building maintenance.

Then we hit the fairness wall. Its not fair to give the better achieving students more, let alone let them be separate from those who cannot or WILL NOT learn. Throw in lots of zero tolerance rules about scissors, aspirin, and the like, and money is diverted to troubled schools who have more students than ever before. In some systems its not fair to celebrate the high achievers! It also isn't fair to test some students now because of race. Apparently race makes people incapable of being tested, I never knew math could form allegiances.

NCLB isn't the problem. The problem is school systems who game the system. They divert money and attention from where it should be.

Re:Schools award mediocrity

[cp.tar]

Well, no matter how bright you are, you won't be winning any contests without working hard.

The academic contests I've been in, I won without really working hard.
That was mainly because it doesn't look like hard work when you're enjoying yourself.

Working smart is better than working hard.

Re:hungrier kids?

[CastrTroy]

I agree. If we continue on with the cake analogy, we have to change it a little bit. Let's assume we have a cake eating contest, and that the goal is to eat the entire cake as fast as possible. It would make sense to give the largest pieces to those who can eat the most cake. For those that don't want to eat as much cake, they can still help out by eating a little. But they shouldn't be given the biggest helping, because it won't help you win the competition. Assuming cake eating is the goal, you shouldn't lower the standards for everyone to make the non-cake eaters feel like they are doing a better job. I'm not so sure I'm ok with the way things are going with kids. We have to treat all the kids like they are the best at everything. When that simply isn't true. When I was a kid, and I played baseball, I always played the field, and was always near the end of the batting lineup. What I learned from that, was that I just wasn't a good baseball player. And I'm ok with that. I was always encouraged to practice, and I wasn't put down. But there was no way I was going to get a chance to play pitcher or shortstop. You see these people on American idle that sing like a cat in heat trapped under a truck, and they think they can sing. That's because everybody has hid the truth from them. That they really can't sing, but people are too afraid to hurt their self esteem.

Re:Schools award mediocrity

[kabocox]

You shouldn't get an award because of your genes, but because of the work you put in. According to who? And why?
Actually, I shouldn't be arguing; if you're correct then I should be able to get a Nobel Prize just by trying really hard.

I agree with you. Effort is meaningless. It's results that matter. "Effort" is rewarded by teachers that feel at least that stupid kid is trying to learn. I breezed through most of junior high, high school, and college. College was only difficult because you generally only had 3-5 grades in any given class and that wasn't nearly enough of a sample size to read the teacher's mind and make up for an early blunder latter. The more tests, home work, and quizs that are taken into that grade the easier most classes are to pass. I'll tell you I'd rather spend my 10 minutes of studying with those that know the subject and can do it rather than those that are clueless in the subject yet seem to find time to "study" 20-30 hours a week. Those that think effort should be rewarded really are just looking for hard working factory drones.

What Teachers Think

[sherriw]

I know several teachers here in Canada, and we have our own version of the 'No Child Left Behind' idea in my province. And the concensus among the teachers is that it translates to a nobody fails policy. So basically, no matter how lazy you are, or how few assignments you hand in... it's nearly impossible for you to fail. If you only hand in one assignment all year, your grade is weighted onto that assignment. If you refuse to do any work, or you skip the exam... the teachers practically gift-wrap extra credit work for you to do instead.

One girl was flagged as 'special needs' in that her only obvious special problem was that she refused to study for anything. As a result, the school decided they would help her with her problem by letting her bring her notes to every exam, even going so far as to allow her to type her exam on an Internet connect computer while the teachers turned a blind eye if she happend to open a web browser.

The result of this is that laziness or attitude has not concequences. Children with true disabilities or difficulties are just ushered through like cattle rather than given real help. And the students who could actually do great things- get discouraged by the sight of their peers getting free rides. They aren't pushed to do their best.

It's an utterly failed concept, bringing everyone down, and turning schools into a joke. But, god forbid you speak out against it... because then... *gasp* you must WANT children to be left behind!
*sigh*

This comes in light of a recent special edition of National Geographic that I read all about China- where school and studying hard is almost a religion over there. We're all going to be out-educated by miles in the next generation.

Re:Schools award mediocrity

[kz45]

"Well, most of the rich inherited the money"

Actually, most people that are rich started in middle or lower class. A small percentage of people actually inherit their fortune.

"most of the successful are just lucky while praising smarts violates the whole "we're all born equal" thing."

I see it this way: Everyone has many lucky situations that pass by them every day. Only if you are smart do you actually know what to do in those situations.

So, it is a small amount of luck and the rest is intelligence.

When I was in school

[g0bshiTe]

There were special ed classes where the kids with learning disabilities and other severe physical handi-caps went to class, and then the gen pop went to normal classes, the over achievers went to AP classes and that was that. To my knowledge the normal kids in regular classes that were the classic lazy under-achiever, read today as ADD, were just primarily left to their own designs in class and only received help if they asked for it.

This method worked well, we had plenty of scientists, engineers, and other highly skilled individuals coming out of schools, or those motivated by learning to set on the road to becoming something along those lines.

I've said for a long time, if a child that has special needs, and yes this is gonna sound like "get off my lawn" but, the curricula should not be dumbed down to make any one child feel better about themselves, it makes the other 30 children in the class suffer by getting a lesser education.

My daughter is by no means a genius, yes I am a dad and I said that, but it's true I think she is average. She gets A/B honor roll every term, and next year is taking 3 AP classes and beginning Japanese, she is in 6th grade. My fear is that because, "no child gets left behind", her education is suffering for it.

Everyone is entitled to an education, a good education, not a half-assed, atta-boy heres your gold star for the day. In the long term, it's our kids that suffer, and ultimately we as a nation will suffer.

When *EVERYONE* is special ...

[RembrandtX]

When you tell every student, no matter how they perform academically, that they are special ... you are really sending the message that no one is special.

The Japanese school system is the perfect example of where we are headed. They study and cram for exams, granted .. to get into better universities .. so essentially most of lower education is spend learning how to ace the exams. This of course has NOTHING to do with actual learning, or learning that is required to produce innovative and imaginative minds anyways.

In the past 20 years, there has been a huge rise in suicides, and what we might be considered odd and violent behavior. Japanese children are burning themselves out, and from time to time someone snaps spectacularly, murders their parents, an entire classroom of students etc. etc. etc.

No child left behind bears striking similarities to this process. Students schools are granted (or withheld) funding based on their schools test scores. So teachers are expected to teach to the tests, instead of the curriculum. In the end it makes dumber kids, who can't handle higher education, with the added benefit of ignoring the high potential children's growth.

So, in order to give a kid who is not mentally apt enough, an almost infinitesimal shot at becoming a doctor, we ignore the group of children who could become very GOOD doctors with only minimal additional effort.

Square peg, round hole syndrome. In the end of the day we either have NO doctors, or a few very very unqualified ones. [You only need a C to pass!]

Can someone explain to me how this makes the employment base of our non-manufacturing country stronger ??

Re:Schools award mediocrity

[tyler.willard]

Your point is well taken, but I don't know that I'd go as far to say that effort is meaningless, at least intrinsically.

For example, I do feel that the willingness to put out high levels of effort to achieve a goal can be a sign of what I'd consider to be good character.

That said, I do think that your assertion about who values effort and why is spot on.

pull your kid out

[Anonymous Coward]

Which is why I've pulled out my kids from the public eduction system and educate them at home using a classical curriculum.

And guess what? My kids are not especially intelligent -- pretty average when they were in the school -- Now my 10 year old reads at a 7th grade level, does math at a 6th grade level. My 6 year old is in third grade all around. And my 4 year old just finished kindegarden.

I'm not pushing them beyond saying we have to do something of each subject every weekday. They pursue the academics on their own and at their own pace.

Now everyone whines at my about socialization. Public schools gave my two kids negative socialization especially the 10 year old. He was getting into all kinds of trouble. Now we socialize in two different homeschool co-ops which other kids with similar experiences. The two oldest also do swimming lessions and other kinds of team based sports so there is plenty of socialization.

Re:Schools award mediocrity

[stdarg]

Also, what if there's a component of genetics in the ability to be a hard worker? People who are genetically predisposed to being depressed, but also predisposed to being very smart, are somehow less valuable than those who are predisposed to having stable emotions, but are less smart?

Re:Schools award mediocrity

[Opportunist]

Actually it was Jeff that did all the hard work. Yet no closing for him. John got it easy. He just snapped his finger and his customer swallowed it, hook, line and sinker.

In any real world scenario, John would be the hero in the company, Jeff would be facing a layoff. Think Gil from The Simpsons fame, the worst salesman in history. You can't say he isn't trying. But he's a loser. That's basically the story behind him. He's trying hard. Really, really hard. But he is a failure.

The real world doesn't care about your efforts. It cares about your results. Teaching our kids the reverse isn't really preparing them for reality.

Re:Also in the news

[Lijemo]

Shhh, remember that people born into a safe home and with a high IQ have a God-given right to succeed. Low achievers were surely bad in a former life. Caste^Wclass^Wmeritocracy is just, because it allows the fortunes of the mightiest to trickle down to the ungrateful average. Please, Sir, can I have some more?

Actually, it's the smart kids that DON'T come from well-off homes with attentive parents that suffer more from lack of attention from the teacher. The well-off kids will get the attention from their parents, and possibly from private tutors, or maybe even private schools. The smart kids who's parents are struggling just to get by, on the other hand, are VERY much in need of the teacher's attention. They are the ones who suffer the most from the "give all the time-attention-resources to the slower kids" policies.

Re:Well fucking DUH

[DJ Jones]

Actually, you're wrong. My sister-in-law is a teacher. What the "No child left behind act" has essentially done, is it has placed all the teacher's attention on the mediocre kids. Let me explain...

The act gives funding to the schools that can get the greatest percentage of students to pass a national standardized test. So what do the teachers do to get the most funding? They group the kids into three categories: Those who will definitely pass the test, those who will most likely never pass it, and those students in the middle who, with a little help, will pass the exam

The teachers then focus all their attention on getting those border-line students to pass the exam in order to get the most funding. The smartest and the most challenged students are the ones who get shafted.

Ask a teacher.

No study needed, just ask any teacher...

[dalthaus]

We really don't need a study to show this... just go into any school and ask any teacher who is now completely teaching to the test because there isn't any time for anything else. They say this appears to be related to No Child Left Behind? Sorry folks, this is a direct result of that disaster. In some schools, we have gotten to the point where if it isn't a graduation requirement or directly assessed on the test, it's not being taught. And here is the kicker... the kids, at least the high school kids, are now at the point of asking if it is on the test or not. If it's not on the test, they really don't want to have anything to do with it. Sure, they will do the work and get the grade because they need it to graduate, but they are really just geared to the test now. Not college, not the world of work, not anything after high school... it's the test. This started with math, reading and writing. This year adds science and next year adds social studies. We are on the way to creating Stepford teachers and Stepford children. And all of this is name of improvement! Before NCLB we had one of the greatest educational systems in the world because we trusted our teachers and had true parent involvement. Now with fruits of the Reagan/Bush I reforms pushing outcome based education that led to NCLB under Bush II, we rank something like 15th. Outcome based education is interesting... you would think the outcome would be what the kid retains on leaving school and how they can apply to life. Not under NCLB... the only outcome here is how well they do on the test. Go figure... and yes... I taught.

Re:Schools award mediocrity

[quanticle]

While I personally laud "hard work", this idea of elevating effort over value smacks of the Protestant Work Ethic run amok.

Worse, it smacks of Marx's key mistake. Marx felt that all value came from labor, and therefore the laborers should own the capital. However, by rewarding effort (labor) over results Marxist doctrine led directly to Soviet factories whose output was worth more as scrap metal than as finished product.

In other words, hard work isn't enough. Hard work must be backed up by brightness and direction. Otherwise, labor is as likely to remove value as it is to add value.

Re:Schools award mediocrity

[ChromeAeonium]

You were lucky in the genetic lottery How long has intellect been determined by your genes? When I was in school, it was the people who, for whatever reason, decided to actually read the material and do the work that succeeded in school. The vast majority of those who didn't do well simply weren't putting in the same effort. Noting genetic about it, and no one used their genes as an excuse.

Re:Schools award mediocrity

[Belial6]

And this is why we can never expect the public school system to work. As long as there is a large portion of the population that believes that "academic institution shouldn't put academic achievement above everything else." schools will fail. Just to be clear, academic achievement is ALL that academic institutions should be concerned about.