←back to thread

412 points tafda | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
dogprez ◴[] No.42247609[source]
She makes some good points, but my take is that we in the 21st century are more bound to the success of our weakest links. Our world has become so complicated, one small mistake can have dire consequences. So, it's the state's priority to spend its limited resources helping those struggling to tread water. Gifted children will get the stimulus they need at home via independent study or from their family. I know since I gave myself an almost complete college education in computer science before I graduated from high school. Splitting gifted kids apart can warp them socially for life too.
replies(6): >>42247681 #>>42247709 #>>42247733 #>>42247751 #>>42247764 #>>42247775 #
ImJamal ◴[] No.42247751[source]
You can help the weakest links without tearing down the most gifted.
replies(1): >>42247979 #
nashashmi ◴[] No.42247979[source]
it is not a teardown we are talking about. But rather giving attention. Give certain students more attention and that takes away equal attention from everyone else.

if you gave attention to two kids, one was smart and quick, and the other was slow and stiff, who would you help more?

replies(1): >>42252400 #
ImJamal ◴[] No.42252400[source]
You tear them down by not providing the education they deserve. You tear them down by forcing them into classes with dumb kids. You tear them down by forcing them into classes with trouble maker kids.

Nobody is getting more or less attention and nobody is advocating for that.

I would help both kids equally by having two teachers. One who could help the smart kids and one who could help the less intelligent kid. This isn't an either or situation.

replies(1): >>42255819 #
1. nashashmi ◴[] No.42255819[source]
> not providing/ forcing

Seems a bit of an entitlement

replies(1): >>42256373 #
2. ImJamal ◴[] No.42256373[source]
Do you want to address the actual points instead of picking on my word choice?