Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Bauglir]

Eh, yeah. Overbearing parents is a big problem with separating classes like that, but I think it's a problem that needs to be solved rather than ignored since grades get the same pressure on the kids from them, and education really isn't one-size-fits-all. Absolutely, you want these to be at the same actual buildings, you want recesses or whatever other leisure time you give them to intermingle the kids, and you don't want to create entirely separate class tracks for generically gifted students. Perhaps, given the self-selection thing, have a bunch of accelerated classes that get through the material of two or three ordinary ones in a single semester, and let the kids pick up to, say, two each semester. Don't allow waivers (because the problem parents would insist upon them, rendering the whole limitation moot), but let kids sit in on whatever they want for no credit in case they are legitimately interested or want to learn something before graduation. Just spitballing here, because insisting everybody be treated equally sounds good but produces unacceptable results for students who aren't right along the average on whatever particular metric you want.

And, of course, getting enough good teachers so you don't get the kids who need encouragement stuck with teachers who are out of fucks to give is mandatory in any plan, so that seems like a separate thing?

[penguinofhonor]

.

[XXSockXX]

Is there anyone who supports the "smart"/"dumb" separation who doesn't think they'd be in the special smart class?

I think so, well, if you don't call it dumb/smart. I know quite a few people who are glad that they didn't have to learn 3 foreign languages or had to do higher-level math or go to school for 13 years, but could do 10 years and focus on crafts rather than books.

I'm actually mostly in favour of separating students early into different schools, like it used to be in (West-)Germany, though that system is pretty much watered down today. I went to the highest-level school of course, so take that with a grain of salt.

[SirQuiamus]

Is there anyone who supports the "smart"/"dumb" separation who doesn't think they'd be in the special smart class?

If I had the smarts, I would eagerly support that type of discrimination. But alas, I have not the smarts: I was a terrible student, and would certainly have ended up in the "dumb group" with the bullies. 

[Antsan]

Is there anyone who supports the "smart"/"dumb" separation who doesn't think they'd be in the special smart class?

I think so, well, if you don't call it dumb/smart. I know quite a few people who are glad that they didn't have to learn 3 foreign languages or had to do higher-level math or go to school for 13 years, but could do 10 years and focus on crafts rather than books.

I'm actually mostly in favour of separating students early into different schools, like it used to be in (West-)Germany, though that system is pretty much watered down today. I went to the highest-level school of course, so take that with a grain of salt.

It is an was not exclusive for West-Germany. That system stems, as far as I can tell, from the time where we still had an emperor (I cannot believe that this is actually the correct translation of "Kaiser" in this case).

As I already said: Have multiple teachers for different levels of "smarts" in one class. This way smarter students can help others and elitism is prevented while at the same time smarter students can work on more complex problems. For mathematics this could mean getting to know actual math instead of only doing arithmetic. You won't even have to go forth to other topics.

[XXSockXX]

That system stems, as far as I can tell, from the time where we still had an emperor (I cannot believe that this is actually the correct translation of "Kaiser" in this case).

That's true.
My knowledge of the GDR system is limited, but as far as I know, the Hauptschule-Realschule-Gymnasium-split wasn't as pronounced there. I always thought the system was a bit more like today's Gesamtschulen, but I may be wrong of course.

As I already said: Have multiple teachers for different levels of "smarts" in one class. This way smarter students can help others and elitism is prevented while at the same time smarter students can work on more complex problems. For mathematics this could mean getting to know actual math instead of only doing arithmetic. You won't even have to go forth to other topics.

From what I know (I know a lot of teachers), this doesn't work well in practice for two reasons.
One, there is not enough money for multiple teachers per class. Not nearly enough. That could be changed in theory, but most likely won't, due to lack of political will and, well, money.
Second, the gap between students is too big, you either end up boring the good ones or hopelessly overburdening the not-good ones. Smarter students helping others sometimes works, but often it doesn't and it makes the others feel stupid, which creates tension.

[penguinofhonor]

.

[Frumple]

Second, the gap between students is too big, you either end up boring the good ones or hopelessly overburdening the not-good ones. Smarter students helping others sometimes works, but often it doesn't and it makes the others feel stupid, which creates tension.

... it can also be pretty nasty for the more advanced students, honestly. Teaching, helping, doing so well, etc., is not even bloody remotely something that comes naturally to most people, and being forced into a situation you're going to perform poorly and quite possibly fail to assist at all is... not psychologically pleasant. Can be a recipe for a great deal of frustration all around. Gods know that expression of "Oh shit" on the face of the better performing students that know they're bollocks at explaining things when tasked to help others isn't something I'm going to forget any time soon.

Collaboration is good, and teaching collaboration is also good, but just shoving kids together and expecting it to not end in tears is, uh. Yeah. There's a reason we actually train teachers, y'know?

[Bauglir]

This is one reason why self-selection is important. People who want the easier courses can choose them without being branded with the stigma of stupidity. Frame it as optimizing their free time or whatever - you can make it seem like the smart decision it often is. Setting the system up in some way to avoid completely parallel education tracks (say, by setting an upper limit on how many of these separate courses you can take, although I'm wide open for suggestions) also helps prevent the clear distinction that gives rise to elitism. Just dividing people up by test scores and sending them through separate school systems would be a terrible idea. Probably unconstitutional in the US, for that matter - Brown v Board of Education is a lot broader than race, curiously enough (although it's also peculiarly limited to public education in a way that makes me glad nobody decided to test it in other areas, but that's tangential).

[Arx]

Is there anyone who supports the "smart"/"dumb" separation who doesn't think they'd be in the special smart class?

Maybe my experience is fundamentally different, but I've been a smart kid in a dumb class, a smart kid in a smart class, and just a kid in an unstreamed class.

The lazy kids in the 'dumb class' were happy because they weren't expected to do much. The hardworking kids were happy because the teacher was able to help them. I spent lessons reading novels under the desk.

The 'dumb' kids who ended up in the 'smart' class were unhappy either because they were hardworking and couldn't keep up with expectations or because they were lazy and didn't understand the work at all. The 'smart' kids were happy because the teacher was teaching fast enough that they weren't bored.

The unstreamed classes were almost the worst of both worlds. I spent lessons reading novels under the desk, and either the 'dumb' kids got left behind or the 'smart' kids got bored.



Streaming is the best option, in my opinion. I do think I'd be in the special smart class, but it's based on experience that I say this.

[XXSockXX]

Just dividing people up by test scores and sending them through separate school systems would be a terrible idea.

Actually until very recently, people in Germany were divided into separate school systems simply upon the recommendation of their elementary school teacher (mostly but not exclusively based on grades). There are/were possibilities to change tracks later though. Only private schools have entrance tests. Nowadays it's up to the parents, which - as has been mentioned before - led to parents sending their kids to the highest level school even if they have no chance to ever finish that school.

[i2amroy]

Don't forget that, as I mentioned in my original statement, there is a definite difference between "smart" kids and "high achievers", and it's not one that shows up on test scores (and if you look on overall scores the high achievers have higher scores more often then not). "High achievers" don't really need much more of a challenge, since they are already being challenged by what they are currently learning. It's just that they are willing to go out and spend the hours studying to get A's on everything. "Smart" kids need greater challenge, since they are often so bored that they don't do all the work through the "I already know this, why do I have to do this busywork", type of mentality (which leads to the aforementioned lower overall scores). I know several people who are high achievers and definitely didn't want to take more advanced classes, despite having some of the highest grades in the current classes. Just splitting by test scores is not a good idea.

Really you need several tiers if you want to prevent having a "dumb" class, since it means people can get separated out into the appropriate level. For example at my high school we had a few branching points, so the only class that was the "dumb" one was the "I failed math 4 years in a row, and I really need to pass the standardized test this year" class, that you only got into if you repeatedly failed algebra (which was already the lowest entry level math).

Is there anyone who supports the "smart"/"dumb" separation who doesn't think they'd be in the special smart class?

I think part of it is the fact that the "smart" kids are the only ones who see the good side of the process.

• "dumb" kids get put into the "dumb" classes, which because our current system is basically "teach to the bottom" means they don't see any real change.
• "high achievers" either get put into the "dumb" class and ace it through hard work without seeing any difference, or they get put into the "smart" class and struggle because the amount of work they would need to do becomes insurmountable.
• "smart" kids will love the "smart" class, since if they are in the "dumb" class they will either be totally ignored in favor of students who actually need help, or will fail the "dumb" class since they aren't bothering to put any work into it.

Of the 3 groups one won't notice a difference, one either won't notice a difference or will have a negative experience since they are misidentified, and only the "smart" kids have a positive one. It's further amplified by the fact that the majority of people fall into the "dumb" or "high achiever" classes based on their work ethic, so very few teachers, administrators, and lawmakers see the "smart"/"dumb" ideas from the side of the "smart" kids.
And one more thing to consider. "Smart" kids most often look for intellectual peers instead of age-based peers. As a result without something that lets them connect with the other "smart" kids they often end up being the weird loner over there, and it often can even limit their ability to form connections to adults that they don't deem to be "smart". The simple fact of having a place where they can meet other kids that are like them makes a huge difference in their mental health. I have heard stories from people where the simple fact that they finally got the chance to meet other people that were like them has literally saved their lives by improving their mental health. Facing the peer pressure from a world that you consider "dumber" then you can be just as damaging as facing that of a world that you consider "smarter".

[Bauglir]

Just dividing people up by test scores and sending them through separate school systems would be a terrible idea.

Actually until very recently, people in Germany were divided into separate school systems simply upon the recommendation of their elementary school teacher (mostly but not exclusively based on grades). There are/were possibilities to change tracks later though. Only private schools have entrance tests. Nowadays it's up to the parents, which - as has been mentioned before - led to parents sending their kids to the highest level school even if they have no chance to ever finish that school.

I maintain that it's a terrible idea

Letting the parents choose exacerbates the whole thing, of course. Eliminate the pressure to be Da Best by condensing the system into share facilities and diffusing the prestige out among numerous subjects that can't all be taken by any given student.

[RedKing]

This is actually an interesting point for me to stumble back into this thread, because my daughter just aced her 2nd-grade state assessment exams. She's got the option to test into an accelerated program next year, and I'm 110% in favor of that. I was freaky smart as a kid, their mom is pretty damn smart too, and both my kids terrify and excite me because I think they're farther along in their math and reading than I was at their age.

Yes, I support accelerated tracks (the "smart" track, if you will) for the kids that need that challenge. My daughter is still at an age where she loves school, and she's had a great year this year because there are no bullies in her class. She had one last year, and it was a problem. There are less likely to be bullies in an accelerated track, and more likely to be other kids who are equally as bright and enthusiastic and slightly oddball as she is. I will vouch from experience that having that "family" of other bright, weird kids is a godsend.

My significant other's two kids are in a magnet high school for performing arts (which also has a very rigorous academic component). From what they've described, it's a high school environment a million times more tolerant and welcoming than what I lived through (and my HS wasn't that bad. My middle school on the other hand....I fondly refer to as William Golding Junior High).

Maybe it's intellectual elitism, but my attitude in general is "fuck your dumbass kids". I'm sympathetic to kids who want to learn and genuinely struggle. I have zero use for kids who have decided that they don't want to be there (often reinforced by parental attitudes towards learning) and just want to fuck it up for those who do.

[Antsan]

Maybe it's intellectual elitism, but my attitude in general is "fuck your dumbass kids". I'm sympathetic to kids who want to learn and genuinely struggle. I have zero use for kids who have decided that they don't want to be there (often reinforced by parental attitudes towards learning) and just want to fuck it up for those who do.

That attitude doesn't come from the children but from school, where children are treated like shit. Of course they don't want to go there.