←back to thread

412 points tafda | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.354s | source
Show context
bilbo0s ◴[] No.42247700[source]
My unpopular take is that people, and definitely the government, would take gifted options more seriously if there weren’t so many kids who did nothing more than learn the multiplication table early being classified as gifted. You limit enrollment to only the extreme outliers and at that point there would be national security benefits to identifying these children. (Heck, I'd bet the federal government might even try to step in and take over the education of gifted children for its own benefit.)

As it stands, it’s just a bunch of kids who mostly land on boringly normal tracks to public flagships. There’s not much upside in even identifying them, because "gifted" has been reduced to mean, well, pretty much anyone who can get a good grade.

replies(5): >>42247870 #>>42247913 #>>42247961 #>>42248186 #>>42248372 #
1. corpMaverick ◴[] No.42247870[source]
Perhaps you need several program levels? remedial, normal, advanced and gifted.

My naive take is that there is a need for each. remedial helps kids to catch up. Normal is where you have perhaps 70% of the students, advanced where you have kids with more natural ambition in some subjects and gifted is where you send the top 5%?