I understand and sympathize. These children are the best and brightest of us. The future will be build by, of, and for them. We cannot have them isolated from everyone else. That way lies disconnection, alienation, resentment, and a total lack of empathy. Madness!

When I was a gifted student in a classroom of regular students, I learned a great deal.

What I learned was not how to help raise up my classmates. What I learned was that my classmates were petty and cruel people who got their jollies bringing me pain. Combine this with material that was far below me and rarely able to hold my attention and the result was a thoroughly miserable experience for a number of years.

I got a diverse viewpoint and understanding of people different from me. I came to learn something else, too - I despised them.

Gifted students are students. Please don't treat them as unpaid assistant teachers. They need to be cared for, kept safe, challenged, and taught. The same as every single other student.

I don't mean to imply that gifted students should be used as teacher aids but I think they have a different role to play in helping their fellow students. The teacher's job is still to teach but having peers to turn to is a valuable resource and skill that everyone should learn. By removing the best resource for that cooperation we do everyone a disservice.

I agree! Having peers to turn to for assistance is immensely valuable in any learning process. It's most valuable when both people involved have something to offer one another, allowing them to engage as equals.

It's perhaps less than ideal to restrict gifted students to the level of their less gifted peers in the interests of said peers having resources to turn to for aid in learning. They are often unable to engage as equals.

Have you considered that this has distinct disadvantages for the gifted, who are then unable to pursue their full potentials so that they can learn to raise up their less gifted peers? This might not be a joyous experience for all concerned.

I think it is a mistake to assume that students with a lower level of academic achievement have nothing to offer students with a higher level of the same.

I agree! I do not believe they have nothing to offer. I do believe that what they have to offer may not universally be a good fit for a classroom environment. I know that when I was a gifted student, my less gifted peers had much to offer outside the classroom. They also had nothing to offer inside the classroom in terms of instructional aid.

I believe that the system described fails because it neglects the needs of everyone involved. The proposal neglects the needs of the gifted by refusing to offer them instruction and material at a level that challenges them and instead attempts to coerce them into being teaching assistants. The proposal neglects the needs of the less gifted by relying on them learning from their more gifted peers instead of offering sufficient instructional infrastructure. The proposal neglects the needs of society by failing to meet the needs of any of the students involved in an attempt to use one group of students to meet the needs of another.

What is proposed is not novel or new. I lived this proposal. It is not one that adequately serves the needs of any person involved.

Segregation may not be the answer, though it's a good way to describe what happens in tertiary education. What we have now - and what you propose - we know with certainty is not the answer.

After all, it's the same system that we all agree is failing for everyone involved.

What proposal are you referring to? I'm not advocating for treating gifted students as teaching aids. I am advocating for an educational environment that serves the interests of all students.

> Gifted students can help raise up their less gifted classmates. If these gifted students are to be the next generation of leaders this is an invaluable skill.

And

> I agree that gifted students have needs and those should be addressed but I don't think a separate school is the solution. Even AP classes feel like a problem to me because the most gifted students are not available to help those that struggle.

Please, tell me if I'm mistaken. It sounds to me that you want to place gifted and less gifted students together, with the goal being to encourage and advance peer instruction of the less gifted by their gifted peers.

Yes I think it is important that students are exposed to differing viewpoints and levels of achievement on a regular basis. I also believe all students should be challenged up to their potential.

Removing the opportunity for the gifted students to learn how to cooperate with their less gifted peers does everyone a disservice, especially when as the future leaders those gifted students will have to know how to work with (and elevate) everyone, regardless of academic achievement. With this in mind segregated schools do a disservice to everyone involved.

I am not advocating a system where everyone is stuck in an introductory level class forever but I also don't think the opposite extreme is the solution.

It could take the form of encouraging gifted students to become tutors or changing curriculum requirements so that gifted students can progress ahead of their peers but without leaving the same classroom.

I don't have the answers but I don't think segregation is the solution.

> Yes I think it is important that students are exposed to differing viewpoints and levels of achievement on a regular basis. I also believe all students should be challenged up to their potential.

Here we have the core of it. These two goals are in conflict. This is because the time in which to advance both of them is limited. The same is true of the resources to advance both of them.

You're not advocating a system in which everyone is stuck in an introductory class forever. You're instead describing a system in which gifted students cannot be challenged to their full capacity because they need to be on hand to help raise up their less gifted peers in order to become better leaders.

Trying to teach students of all abilities from the same material in the same classroom at the same time comes with... difficulties.

* The inconsistency in level and material is a significant source of work for the teacher.

* Instructional time is limited, with the side-effect being that all students get less time than they would benefit from as the teacher spends time on the diverse and distinct requirements in their classrooms.

* Encouraging gifted students to progress ahead of their less gifted peers inevitably means they are not ideally placed to aid in elevating their less gifted peers. Incidentally, this model is usually called benign neglect. The gap will tend to grow as time passes, until a gifted student is doing calculus at an age where their less gifted peers are starting to learn algebra.

* Asking gifted students to spend time elevating and raising up their less gifted peers takes away from time they might prefer to use advancing their own studies.

Thank you for coming out and saying you think gifted students should become tutors. I suspect you've been playing with that idea internally for this whole discussion.

Have you perhaps considered that not having the answers may mean just that? It's perhaps possible that known approaches could not be rejected out-of-hand, especially when one has no answers to offer. Consider, if you will, that most institutions of higher learning essentially function through de facto segregation.

> Gifted students can help raise up their less gifted classmates

If the right techniques are used on the classroom, this might be true. In practice, gifted students who aren't challenged not only underperform their own potential, but also become disruptive influences that impair the learning environment for their classmates.

> Would those that support segregated schools based on academic performance also support schools segregated based on athletic performance?

Having sports-focussed magnet schools would be somewhat novel, but not given the existence of not only gifted-specific magnets but also tech-focussed magnets, performing arts magnets, and others, a athletics-focussed magnet with athletic aptitude as a key consideration in selection criteria wouldn't be that odd, and might improve education for everyone (including those selected into it -- having an sports-amd-athletics focus in the academic subjects might keep those students more interested and successful.)

I think we agree on the problems but disagree on the solutions. All students need their needs addressed, not just gifted ones. Every single student is different so having schools that cater to one skill set does a disservice to all students.

We need to focus on using the right techniques for all students, not just the gifted ones.

>Gifted students can help raise up their less gifted classmates.

Gifted students can often also be held back by their less gifted classmates, and feel a sense of isolation from being different. Gifted students with a stimulation-seeking kick also do not work well at all with traditional education.

Industrial-revolution-era ideas about school are terrible as far as i'm concerned, and made education a very sour experience for me once the novelty of going to school wore off.

I'm all for the notion that segregation of education is a bad idea (taxes that benefit only one's immediate district are terrible), but I totally don't buy into the notion that smart kids have anything to gain by being taught the way average and dumb kids have to be.

Also, this is anecdotal and field-dependent, but after high school you really do kind of live in a vacuum. In software especially, it feels like everyone kind of fits the archetype.

Sure, I'm not advocating for the status quo here. I just don't think segregation is the solution. All students struggle in our current education system so I think we need to solve that problem at the root rather than focus on just one symptom of a broken system.

Gifted students should get what they need just like everyone else.

I don't think a segregated system is good for anyone and the vacuum chamber you mention after high school is a problem in my opinion. We should all learn to seek diverse viewpoints for our entire lives.

You may find that very often, what gifted students need is to be separated from their less gifted peers for more appropriate instruction.

The solution and approach you described earlier is the one currently in use in a great many places. Indeed, it's the default approach in general, because it requires no efforts whatsoever on the part of the schools, faculty, or staff.

Please do not misunderstand, I do not think the current system is working, I just don't think segregation is the solution.

I understand. I agree! The current system is not working for anyone. I also think that the system you have described, in which gifted students are placed with their less gifted peers to raise them up, is identical to the current system. What you have described is literally identical to a system we have just agreed does not work.

As a result, I believe that what you describe does not work.

I'm honestly not even sure what such a system would look like so I think you are jumping to conclusions. I just don't think segregated schools are the solution.

I think we need to rethink the entire system. Every student learns differently and at a different pace so forcing everyone into the exact same experience isn't going to work. Maybe there is a case for more advanced opportunities based on academic (or athletic, or any other criteria) achievement. I don't think that requires an entirely separate school.

You've described a system in which gifted and less gifted students are taught together with the express goal being for the gifted students to "raise up" their less gifted peers. If I've mistaken you and you did not suggest that, please accept my deepest apologies for the mistake.

You're absolutely right that every student is a unique individual. You want to teach students individually. One of the drawbacks of this is that the gifted will not reliably be positioned to raise up their less gifted peers, as divergence in individual instruction compounds over time.

I've seen schools that offer advanced opportunities based on academic or athletic criteria. In practice, they tend to look like gifted students in AP or IB courses and their less gifted peers in other courses. You don't need separate schools to get de facto segregation - all it takes is a series of advanced opportunities on offer.

With all this in mind, how do you propose to offer gifted students opportunities and material equal to their abilities while keeping them available and relevant to help raise up their less gifted classmates?

A combination of classes shared regardless of academic performance along with opportunities for students to be challenged up to their level would be a good start. In my day to day career and personal life I am not intellectually challenged at all times, I think it's valuable if school emulates this experience. I think it's important that students don't get placed in echo chambers where they begin to think that everyone thinks or performs like they do.

Like I said, I don't know how it would work but I don't think segregated schools are the solution, that's a step too far that eliminates opportunities for students of differing academic achievement to find common ground and teach each other something.

All students should be challenged up to their potential, having two options isn't fine grained enough. What do you do about the kids that are bored even in the "gifted" programs?

I think all students should be challenged to their fullest capacity. This is and should be the primary and overriding goal of education. I think this is sufficiently important to override any and all concerns about enabling the gifted to help raise up/elevate/tutor their less gifted classmates. I think that goal would be worthwhile if you had a mechanism to ensure interactions were positive, because in practice they are often antagonistic and highly negative.

The best known solution that I'm familiar with is to allow independent study work. Larger schools also allow for more coursework offerings, enabling far more than just two sets of courses.

I'm sure you won't be on board with this, because it's de facto segregation. It's an option that can be done today and is better able to offer appropriate challenges to students of all abilities.

I will take an option that serves the goal I consider of overriding importance over an uncertain rejection of a known solution with no other options on the table. I am hesitant to trade-off this primary goal via rejection of known methods to advance it in the interest of... let's go with the euphemism "encouraging peer instruction".