

Smart Child Left Behind - tokenadult
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/28/opinion/28petrilli.html

======
dkarl
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.

~~~
tilly
Does this fact not strike you as sad? According to
[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1653653,00....](http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1653653,00.html)
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.

~~~
sh1mmer
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.

~~~
alan-crowe
> 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.

------
pmichaud
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.

------
thetrumanshow
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.

~~~
ars
> 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.

~~~
akd
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.

~~~
diN0bot
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.

~~~
MaysonL
Take a look at <http://www.hcz.org/our-results>

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.

------
Poiesis
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.

