Smart children aren't being left behind, per se. You might say, rather, that their opportunities are being diluted by big leaps in the education of the margins of society.
I wonder if we really know yet if this is good or bad for innovation.
> I wonder if we really know yet if this is good or bad for innovation.
The top performers produce pretty much all the progress that is made in a field. From a global progress perspective, it's much more important for the top performers to advance than for the lower ones.
On the other hand for the "everyone needs a job" perspective, and "not all progress is revolutionary, you still need people to do ordinary work" you need the bottom performers to advance.
But this is not a zero sum game (as you imply). You can advance both, it's just not as many politicians care about the top performers. That's because politicians don't care about global progress, they care about bulk numbers: the majority of people need to be happy, and have incomes. And that implies helping the bottom and middle levels.
The highest achievers will always have to fight politics instead of depend on it, since while a top achiever may produce 1000x the societal contribution of an average achiever, he/she will still only have 1 vote.
Consider also: "For each decision, consider the impact on the next seven generations"
If you can thrust up the lowest achievers into a better lifestyle, their children will be even better off. Why should "contribution to society" be limited to top achievers? Why should we be cynical about the ability of a democratic society to make decisions?
SAT performance, and education performance in general, is heavily correlated with socioeconomic class. We should spend more on those who need more. The next generation will be substantially better off. Over time society should become "wealthier," able to help its citizens better as more are able to help themselves and others.
It shows what kids from the lowest socioeconomic class can achieve, given support, encouragement, and an enriched learning environment from an early age.
The kids in Promise Academy's third grade classes (scoring 100% at or above grade level in one school, and 96% at the other), had been intensive preschool since age three.
Read the book Whatever It Takes by Paul Tough for more details of one of the most hope-inspiring stories in education today.
One thing to consider in deciding how much to spend on education for poor students is the effect this will have on welfare and prison costs for the next generation.
I wonder if we really know yet if this is good or bad for innovation.
Based on international comparisons (I have lived in east Asia), I'd have to say that it helps a lot to give better, more challenging education to everyone, but also to allow the most able learners to find challenges appropriate for their abilities rather than to be slowed down by lockstep curricula. Most other countries think it's crazy not to "track" students by ability, while all thriving countries endeavor to provide good basic education to all learners.
Teaching the smartest 5% of kids in a classroom is like surfing Hacker News. It might be fun and rewarding, but it isn't "real" work. It isn't part of the job description, it isn't what teachers are paid for, and it doesn't affect their performance metrics. Smart kids just have to be satisfied with the lectures and assignments that are designed for the marginal kids.
Even in an AP class, the top few kids in the class are guaranteed 5s. The teacher will focus effort on the kids who are hovering around the 2/3 boundary.
Does this fact not strike you as sad? According to http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1653653,00.... if we are generous in our estimate of how much is spent on gifted programs, we spend 10 times as much to educate the mentally retarded as the gifted. Yet which group poses greater potential returns for society?
Gifted kids should not have trouble with school. Yet they drop out at the same rate as everyone else. And frequently are pressured to under perform. I consider this a tragedy.
The question should not be who gives greater returns to society but the allocation based on need.
It is probable that children with learning disabilities will always need more care (and hence money). I think the real issue is that we are falling short of stimulating our brightest children. That doesn't justify taking from children with specific needs for support.
> It is probable that children with learning disabilities will always need more care (and hence money). I think the real issue is that we are falling short of stimulating our brightest children. That doesn't justify taking from children with specific needs for support.
Okay - so where are you going to get the money?
In the short term, the size of the pie is fixed. In the long term, it isn't.
It may be that spending a greater percentage of resources on "smart kids" will produce enough more wealth that there will be more resources to spend on "not so smart" kids. Or not.
This isn't a question that can be answered with platitudes.
> The question should not be who gives greater returns to society but the allocation based on need.
That kind of impractical, feel-good sloganising stifles democracy.
How are people supposed to respond? They know that generally people takes a more hard headed approach to issues that directly effect them and the sloganiser is probably being hypocritical. But complaining about the hypocrisy is to derail the discussion; switching from how resources are alocated within education to quarrelling about how one participant organises his private life ruins the debate.
One might try to argue in a loop, saying that allocation based on talent will expand the economy eventally allowing more needs to be met. But the slogan is a feel good slogan. If you are backed into arguing against a feel-good slogan you have to take the role of feel-bad guy in the discussion and that really does feel bad because you are pretty damn sure it is just a slogan: the other guy is probably pretty ruthless in his private life (just look at his debating tactics).
But why have this discussion at all? If you have a job and a family you don't actually have time to waste on a "from each according to his ability, to each according to he need" neo-Marxist bun fight. You want to have a adult discussion about educational priorities. So when some-one kicks off the bunfight with "allocation based on need." you are effectively disenfranchised.
The obvious solution is to simply allow gifted children to advance more quickly, which would be the natural course of things. Of course, the institutional and political hurdles are considerable.
This doesn't sound natural to me. "Gifted" often means gifted in logic, reasoning, reading and writing. It does not mean gifted socially or athletically. Children develop a ton each year. Advancing a child one year ahead puts them at a great disadvantage socially and athletically. It encourages them to be even more one-dimensional than they already are, rather than encouraging them to excel at many things--in fact to consider that it's ok to choose what to excel at, to try new things and fail, to find their own personality.
I think have ceilings is unfortunate (better to have a much harder AP where even the smart kids who work really hard are challenged by the exams, too). Nonetheless, I would think hard about pushing someone through school faster than normal. It's great if children can get through homework fast (and correctly)--they can learn good habits about free time and have fun. They can even start learning about how to choose what work to do, how to not stress out about grades and external expectations, how to find their own meaning, how to find satisfaction, how to tell the difference between hard work and busy work, and not give up. I learned a lot of this by playing sports (sports psychology is wicked awesome character development).
Learning math versus more math just seems like squabbling over details to me. For a very small number of kids it might be the right choice. Everyone's different, though.
There is another approach to learning math for the brightest learners, but they usually have to find that approach outside the standard school curriculum.
This system won't work for high achievers. It just can't -- the goals are too far apart, the incentives too perverse. I eventually got tired of waiting for a miracle, now I educate my own children... but even that's not a real systematic solution. It just means we'll have the blind leading the blind. There are no easy answers here.
Heard an interesting point once regarding teaching the gifted. Apparently we devote tons of time and effort teaching kids that are at the left side of the intelligence curve. But the equal number of gifted students on the right side are supposed to make do with whatever they get. It might be reasonable to think that this latter group has unique educational requirements just as does the former. The current system has gifted students just surviving, not thriving.
19 comments
[ 4.0 ms ] story [ 45.3 ms ] threadI wonder if we really know yet if this is good or bad for innovation.
The top performers produce pretty much all the progress that is made in a field. From a global progress perspective, it's much more important for the top performers to advance than for the lower ones.
On the other hand for the "everyone needs a job" perspective, and "not all progress is revolutionary, you still need people to do ordinary work" you need the bottom performers to advance.
But this is not a zero sum game (as you imply). You can advance both, it's just not as many politicians care about the top performers. That's because politicians don't care about global progress, they care about bulk numbers: the majority of people need to be happy, and have incomes. And that implies helping the bottom and middle levels.
If you can thrust up the lowest achievers into a better lifestyle, their children will be even better off. Why should "contribution to society" be limited to top achievers? Why should we be cynical about the ability of a democratic society to make decisions?
SAT performance, and education performance in general, is heavily correlated with socioeconomic class. We should spend more on those who need more. The next generation will be substantially better off. Over time society should become "wealthier," able to help its citizens better as more are able to help themselves and others.
It shows what kids from the lowest socioeconomic class can achieve, given support, encouragement, and an enriched learning environment from an early age.
The kids in Promise Academy's third grade classes (scoring 100% at or above grade level in one school, and 96% at the other), had been intensive preschool since age three.
Read the book Whatever It Takes by Paul Tough for more details of one of the most hope-inspiring stories in education today.
One thing to consider in deciding how much to spend on education for poor students is the effect this will have on welfare and prison costs for the next generation.
Based on international comparisons (I have lived in east Asia), I'd have to say that it helps a lot to give better, more challenging education to everyone, but also to allow the most able learners to find challenges appropriate for their abilities rather than to be slowed down by lockstep curricula. Most other countries think it's crazy not to "track" students by ability, while all thriving countries endeavor to provide good basic education to all learners.
(Which would constitute a worst of both worlds view I suppose).
Even in an AP class, the top few kids in the class are guaranteed 5s. The teacher will focus effort on the kids who are hovering around the 2/3 boundary.
Gifted kids should not have trouble with school. Yet they drop out at the same rate as everyone else. And frequently are pressured to under perform. I consider this a tragedy.
It is probable that children with learning disabilities will always need more care (and hence money). I think the real issue is that we are falling short of stimulating our brightest children. That doesn't justify taking from children with specific needs for support.
Is it possible to acknowledge that all learners need fitting education?
Okay - so where are you going to get the money?
In the short term, the size of the pie is fixed. In the long term, it isn't.
It may be that spending a greater percentage of resources on "smart kids" will produce enough more wealth that there will be more resources to spend on "not so smart" kids. Or not.
This isn't a question that can be answered with platitudes.
That kind of impractical, feel-good sloganising stifles democracy.
How are people supposed to respond? They know that generally people takes a more hard headed approach to issues that directly effect them and the sloganiser is probably being hypocritical. But complaining about the hypocrisy is to derail the discussion; switching from how resources are alocated within education to quarrelling about how one participant organises his private life ruins the debate.
One might try to argue in a loop, saying that allocation based on talent will expand the economy eventally allowing more needs to be met. But the slogan is a feel good slogan. If you are backed into arguing against a feel-good slogan you have to take the role of feel-bad guy in the discussion and that really does feel bad because you are pretty damn sure it is just a slogan: the other guy is probably pretty ruthless in his private life (just look at his debating tactics).
But why have this discussion at all? If you have a job and a family you don't actually have time to waste on a "from each according to his ability, to each according to he need" neo-Marxist bun fight. You want to have a adult discussion about educational priorities. So when some-one kicks off the bunfight with "allocation based on need." you are effectively disenfranchised.
I think have ceilings is unfortunate (better to have a much harder AP where even the smart kids who work really hard are challenged by the exams, too). Nonetheless, I would think hard about pushing someone through school faster than normal. It's great if children can get through homework fast (and correctly)--they can learn good habits about free time and have fun. They can even start learning about how to choose what work to do, how to not stress out about grades and external expectations, how to find their own meaning, how to find satisfaction, how to tell the difference between hard work and busy work, and not give up. I learned a lot of this by playing sports (sports psychology is wicked awesome character development).
Learning math versus more math just seems like squabbling over details to me. For a very small number of kids it might be the right choice. Everyone's different, though.
http://www.artofproblemsolving.com/Resources/AoPS_R_A_Calcul...
What this author writes about is what the supplementary math classes I teach to elementary-age students are all about.
No, fuck that.
Everything else that can be said on this is mere commentary.