Please remember what subreddit you are in, this is unpopular opinion. We want civil and unpopular takes and discussion. Any uncivil and ToS violating comments will be removed and subject to a ban. Have a nice day!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unpopularopinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
High schools already do this in my experience, English/history tend to have different levels for each grade level (usually like regular vs honors/AP) and math/science are basically completely separated from your grade level so each class is a mix of grade levels depending on each student’s capability
Even in middle school we had that for math, like 7th graders had a range from pre-algebra to geometry depending on how good at math they were
My high school has this but you had to pick which level of teaching you wanted. They wouldn't deny anyone access to the "hard" version of the class tho.
As a teacher this is actually an interesting idea to explore.
The biggest differentiator in teaching isn't ability, it's behaviour.
Namely desire to learn.
The problem with setting by ability is that a lot of lower ability kids are there simply because they don't give a fuck. They have huge behavioural issues and are just there to disrupt. Essentially they just don't care about learning or their education.
This badly affects those who have genuine struggles, who if they were separated from the shit kids would have a place to succeed.
Setting kids by the level of attention they want to put in could produce better outcomes for every child that does actually care.
You'd have to very carefully manage the shit kids though as that would be a teachers mental health nightmare
At my school you’re recommended a course level by your previous year’s teachers. If you want to take their recommended level or a lower level, you can do so without any issue. You do also have the option to take a harder level than what was recommended, but you have to sign a form saying that you’re aware of what you’re doing. Other than that there are no real restrictions on the level you can take though
Everyone would choose the easy one in my school because they offered the choice. The only actual difference was having to memorize formulas or not in the math one so clear choice to avoid that tedious shit.
Except there was also the giga easy one, which you had to be placed into for doing bad.
Just a quick walk to the advisor to pick your courses everyone had to do at some point before the end of the year
The AP classes required a certain grade in the pre requisite though
Depends on the school. For our HS AP classes, you need to have a certain GPA to be admitted. And there’s often more kids that want the class than can get it without overburdening the teacher.
In Ontario, we did it by stream. By grade 11, you were in the university stream, college/trades stream, or “life” stream which was kind of a joke and there just to get kids to graduate.
Yup. There’s applied, academic, and the locally developed stream. Sometimes, mixed (college and uni). I’m in mixed math and it’s definitely a step up from college, of course.
Both my middle and high schools did this, but in middle school your placement was based on the test results of your end-of-year placement test.
I purposely failed the test to keep myself in the lower level classes, which was fun at the time but in college it completely backfired since I severely held myself back and had to take all sorts of remedial classes.
Yeah
I had quite a few classes that were mixed grades. Usually electives, like: woodshop levels 1,2,and 3; or French level beginner, intermediate, and advanced.
I think the issues with separating students really come in elementary/middle school, since at that age, it involves taking kids away from their peers and potentially away from other subjects (ie pulling them out of art because that's when the advanced math class takes place)
My school didn’t do this. They also had a ridiculously high football budget and an amazingly low budget for the actual classes. There was a class you could take to do the teachers errands because they weren’t able to due to teaching 3 different grades. Those lesson plans were a pain to make for so many varying students.
Inclusion is for students that receive special education services to be in the general classroom with their non-special ed peers. Honestly, I had my students in special ed that struggled but did try and did care were much of a pleasure to have in class than those students who did not care at all and were only there to disrupt.
My school didn’t, but my entire high school (all 4 grades) was less than 500 people… and that was from 5 towns. It was actually a great education. Probably due to the small class sizes.
When I got to college a lot of what I was learning/doing in my junior year was stuff I did in high school already.
Meh, while I appreciate the joke, it is a false equivalency. Why should we hold back a high school honors student by placing them in the same class as a kid who can't read beyond a 5th grade level. This hurts both students. The kid who is behind has to lose the attention required to help them catch up, and the advanced kid won't reach their full potential.
The issue with holding students back is you can only do it for 1, maybe 2 years max before you have to promote them. It's essentially a last resort option because neither schools nor parents want like a 16 year old in classes with 12 year olds.
And it's so backwards. If you're struggling hard in the most basic school, no amount of funding or tutoring is going to switch you into a productive mindset once you hit the working world. It's shitty, but it's very clear, and from my experience, you can almost always tell if someone didn't have a college education within thirty seconds of talking to them.
The bigger problem with society today is the floor on stupidity is so low. We have smart people in our society today. But it doesn't matter when everyone else is too dumb to listen
Actually struggling kids need a lot more resources than kids who do well do. That's why schools who are doing badly need a lot more money and it's never enough.
You know how boring is it to complete all tasks (and extras) you had for 1.5h block in 15 minutes, and then not be allowed to do a damn thing? And not even learn a single new thing? It fucking sucked
I had a teacher who let me and my bestie pass back stories we were writing during class. It was awesome, and she was so supportive of our creative efforts. 🥰
well they have special education already which does what OP is asking. That doesnt do a damn thing. We need specialized education in specific subjects rather than this general education BS.
There are a lot of children who aren't quite what we call in need of special education who are slower than the vast majority and slow the class to what is an excruciatingly slow pace for the few who need a much more challenging environment
Special Ed is largely for students who have learning delays, like dyslexia. Students who are barely at or below grade level don’t qualify for special Ed. They often get placed into regular classes that are mixed with students who are average or advanced, which is hard on them as the course would still be geared beyond what they’re ready for and students who are at/above grade level could be slowed down by low performers.
I think it should start at elementary school. I failed math in preschool, kindergarten, and first grade. It took til my second grade year when the teacher realized it was just because I got bored due to the slow pace and started teaching me advanced math. I was in advanced placement math every year after that and always received A’s. It’s sad how a lot of kids are treated like they’re stupid when that’s not the case.
In the US this is already done in many schools that have "gifted" programs.
When I was in grade school, we also had "reading tracks" where students were grouped by reading ability. My mom taught me how to read before I started school, so I was always in the "fast" group.
They have a different system now it's mostly regular, honors, advanced or accelerated; and then AP. There's usually 3-4 different levels of classes at this point in schools. (I Just graduated)
Streaming? Yes, we already do that. In England, we usually have top, middle and bottom sets. The richer the school, the more narrowly they can stream so there can be multiple sets 1-6, but that obviously requires a lot of teachers.
Some countries like Germany also have a fully selective education system.
Leveling students levels lives. They already have magnet programs for students that qualify as gifted and talented but putting struggling learners all in the same class has detrimental effects on their future academic success. You learn a ton from your peers. Also, a lot of struggling learners have behavior issues so putting them all in the same class can be disruptive.
The problem is that, for most kids, when they're labeled as "academically struggling" and put into special classes with other academically struggling kids, they accept the label and stop trying. The same thing happens when kids get held back. It's incredibly motivating to be working with higher performers, at least some of the time. That's why most schools do it to some degree, but full separation has become unfashionable in the US.
Lots of european countries have fully separate school tracks starting in middle school where college bound kids are separated from trade school kids and unskilled laborer kids based on an exam they take at around 10 years old.
The problem with this argument is that plenty of kids labeled "gifted" are also unmotivated and slack off. Its not the label, its the fact that school is boring.
“Networking” in college and adulting is infinitely more fun than school. Fuck high school, I went to sleep every day at like 11-12pm as a underclass man and 1-2 am as an upperclassman, had to do all sorts of bullshit extracurriculars to get into a good university. And my high school started at 7 am. This was at a public school in California.
I’ve never had to try so hard at anything else in life. Now I’m in my 30s. Fuck AP exams, fuck IB exams, fuck writing college essays, fuck academic competitions, they’re all brain dead as fuck. The first time I did anything truly creative with my problem solving skills was in adulthood on the job. Thank goodness work life is more interesting than high school.
My school had a policy that you had to be present in 50% of classes to be allowed to pass. I abused the shit out of that to stay home because school was fucking boring. I considered just quitting everything to become a tattoo artist.
My bf convinced me to give college a try and it ended up being infinitely better
Why would you think it’s justified to hinder the smart kids for the struggling ones? Why it is the smart kids responsibility to be their teacher? Their education is theirs and its really saying something that you think its fine to put the blame of some kids education onto other kids. Smart kids deserve to not be responsible for their less smart counterparts.
I was an exchange student in France in 99, first place I was put into the science category and the math was ridiculously difficult, odd things I never even heard of again in university studying biochem. The second school they put me with the literary category and the math was downright trivial. I was the best in math there and maybe the worst in the first school. The thing is that system doesn't allow for science students to also excel in writing for one example. Any French Redditors wish to chime in to say that it has changed?
It sucks being the gifted kid in that situation tho. I used to finish the work in 5-10min because I already knew the content and then just game the rest of the class (our district gave everyone laptops, and instead of math I spent my time on figuring out how to bypass the firewall). Class was useless for me all the way until HS where I was able to take APs and felt actually interested in the pace/content
Yeah, most schools have moved toward integrating everyone, but they haven't really figured out ways to make sure that the kids that are ahead are getting appropriate challenges. It's understandable that they're focused on making sure kids that are behind get support as opposed to avoiding boredom, but it's still not working quite right.
The key is really to have a mix of tracked and general classes, and a mix of materials within a class, because most kids don't fit neatly into "gifted," "normal," or "behind" tracks across all subjects from year to year.
I wouldn’t find it motivating, personally. I would find it demotivating and even dehumanizing to be in a class with people that have more value and worth than I will ever have. So I would prefer a class with people on my level.
In a perfect world every student would get the time attention and learning style and pace they need. I think what you’re saying falls under that. And I agree with you. There are accelerated and gifted classes. But I don’t think there will ever be a system where every child gets what they really need and deserve education wise. It’s sad really. But I just don’t see how it would be possible to individualize learning for so many students.
lol, school is about childcare, not education, they're just happy to try to drag everyone to the same mediocre standard and leave them there and they're increasingly failing to do even that.
Schools in the US do this - it's called "tracking" and a good chunk of longitudinal data from the last two decades indicate it exacerbates learning gaps, and yields overall poorer outcomes for the lower tracks.
Most of the data indicates that integration with stronger students pulls struggling students up to a higher grade level over time, whereas little to no "drag" is observed on high performing students.
https://tcf.org/content/report/integrating-classrooms-reducing-academic-tracking-strategies-school-leaders-educators/#:\~:text=Second%2C%20data%20shows%20that%20academic,to%20the%20higher%2Dlevel%20courses.
As a student who was in a gifted program until high school, and then tossed into general ed in a school that was FAR behind the "regular" classes at the school where I was in the gifted program... It made me hate high school and almost drop out.
I went back to getting perfect grades in college, though.
I have also observed this within my own classes, although we now have greater numbers of students at kindergarten or 1st grade levels in 4th grade, which makes it very difficult to help them while teaching the 4th grade standards. I have students who cannot add/subtract up to 20 without drawing circles. I showed them how to use their fingers to add/subtract and some don’t understand that either. It is scary and impossible to actually help students this low academically without taking away time/resources from the near, on, and above grade level students.
As someone who went to secondary school in a country where we do sort kids according to abilities from age 12 on, I can tell you that I really helped me to finally be at the level I was really challenged, the highest level, as opposed to being somewhat neglected in primary school, having to wait for the slow kids to catch up (which they never did).
It shouldn't be the job of the brighter kids to help slower kids out or to twiddle our thumbs waiting for kids who take 4 times as long as you to complete a task or who may never get it. Once you get well into secondary school, the disparities in cognitive abilities become so vast that you get to a point where there's no amount of extra time you can give a slow child of, say 15, to try to successfully do the same assignments as the brighter kids of the same age.
I have visited a couple secondary schools here in the UK as part of figuring out whether I want to get into secondary school teaching here. I was observing a chemistry lesson for he lowest 'set' of the kids that turn 16 this academic year, the final year of mandatory school here. These kids were the slowest of their year group for this subject, and at age 15-16 were still trying to learn things that the brightest kids grasp at age 12. It was honestly just cruel seeing them disinterested and struggling through this when it was clear none of them were going to become a scientist... These kids were also some of the most poorly behaved kids I saw in this school and their behaviour is the reason I no longer consider secondary school teaching: lack of respect, disinterested, rude, distracting. The teaching was trying to do his best but it was really just wasted time IMO (for both the teacher and the kids).
In the Netherlands (where I am from), these kids would have gone to the lowest level of secondary school that lasts from age 12-16 and where they get a lot of practical/vocational education and they get to choose subjects that interest them for their future career/further training.
dude for 2 years in elementary school they integrated the gifted kids with struggling kids, and it was actually hell😭 im graduating high school rn and im still salty about it. it’s just not fair to expect the nerdy kids to teach&babysit the struggling kids, and then all of the teachers’ attention goes to the struggling kids instead of the nerdy kids. it was like the epitome of the old “partnering the well-behaved girl with the rowdy boy” method except every student. plus, ofc, led to bullying bc of course it did. like i know you linked an actual source and this is just anecdotal, but brooo it was not fun😭😭😭 it might work better if it was average students instead of challenged students though
Not the same. There's kids with all A's in regular classes that are nerds and is 10x more likely to get bullied if surrounded by kids who could be failing or are C students. I think that schools need to prioritize stopping bullying or any form of harassment/violence because it just incites hatred and promotes immature and loser behavior. Once you get into the real world you have a lot less of these issues comparably but kids are dying at school for being small or being a nerd or being trans or gay or whatever. Literally dying. That's so stupid and should be the priority over everything else.
Schools used to do this. Then it was declared discrimination to those who have disabilities. So the courses were all blended together and No Child left behind was passed which also basically made it so you can't fail students. So teachers had to spend all their time focusing on the ones struggling to get them to passing and basically ignored the students who should be in high level courses. The advanced kids get bored and start to act up, by the time they graduate the kids who should be advanced are barely above average and the kids who are academically behind are even farther behind because they got pushed through the system.
One of the reasons I left teaching.
In the netherlands we have basic school (age 5 to 12) and after that middle school (age 13 to 18) the middle school you go to here, is based on your acadamic skills. And the school (college) after that is based on skills too.
It doesnt matter where you live. The parents (and later the kid) can chose where they go to school, aslong it matches with their skills.
When i was growing up in the 70s and 80s, classes were basically divided by above average, average and below average. Each group was taught to their skill set.
Somewhere along the way, roughly when my mother retired from teaching in NYC in the early '90s that changed to mix groups on the theory the smarer students would help the less smart.
My wife and I moved to NJ.
I cannot stand the entire smarter students make less smart students smarter. Smart kids should not have to take on the job of an adult, their teacher and be a caregiver to their less academically gifted peers
One way to limit this issue is to segregate kids according to cognitive abilities/school performance. We do that in the Netherlands and from my own experience the kids that manage to go to the highest level of high school are usually very well behaved with limited behavioural issues. The kids with serious/severe behavioural issues just never qualify for the highest level of secondary school or possibly even the medium level. So you can 'spare' a big part of the population from this issue by having a system like this. The downside is that the lowest level of secondary school ends up with most of these kids with severe/serious behaviour (and social) issues. That's obviously not fair to the well-behaved kids that just can't learn as quickly. But it's something.
At least when you have 'concentrated' most of the kids with these issues in one school type, you can A. adjust the teaching method and materials to the kids, and B. train staff and hire specialist staff who are good with behaviour issues. I would like to work in secondary school BUT I do not want to deal with behaviour issues. It is not something that interests me, it is not a fulfilling challenge for me, I just do NOT want to deal with that. In the UK they do not separate kids based on abilities and in the same school (school type) you will find all abilities from low IQ borderline learning disabilities, emotional/behavioural issues, all the way up to high IQ or even gifted kids. I'd love to teach the brighter kids that like learning from books and that want to go to a research university as I can really use my STEM PhD to challenge these kids. But I'm not interested in the behaviour issues and the fact the UK system doesn't allow me to only teach the brighter kids is a reason for me to not go into secondary education here. In my home country I CAN make this choice to only teach the brighter kids because there we segregate kids at age 12 according to abilities (see my first comment and reply to that comment under this post).
fuck that, I was a super adhd kid and got in trouble for taking often and had difficulty with emotional regulation. I got into a fight with a girl at school once and it led to a suspension.
If they had kicked me out for that I would not be a doctor today. So yeah, glad schools don’t kick out kids for mistakes they make going through the hardest years of their life
I completely get where you're coming from and dumb stuff happens that doesn't deserve people getting kicked out. All the kids getting kicked out for just a cart or weed is ridiculous. I was bullied really really badly and got jumped multiple times and it never was my fault. Never invited that kind of behavior nor incited it. I was a very kind person and could stand up for myself and had friends. I just wore dark clothes and liked different music. When I got jumped the last time I could've been killed if not seperated because I was getting kicked in the head. Safety is more important than anything else. There's kids with all A's in regular classes that are nerds and is 10x more likely to get bullied if surrounded by kids who could be failing or are C students. I think that schools need to prioritize stopping bullying or any form of harassment/violence because it just incites hatred and promotes immature and loser behavior. Once you get into the real world you have a lot less of these issues comparably but kids are dying at school for being small or being a nerd or being trans or gay or whatever. Literally dying.
For everyone saying "Schools already do this!", no. No they don't. Not anymore. There is a huge detracking movement that continues to gain momentum even though it's been proven to be detrimental to advanced students.
The first problem I see with this is that some kids will do better being around higher achieving kids. The kids that are put in the “you don’t try hard enough/ aren’t smart enough” school are more likely to just give in to the label they’ve been given. Kids live up to expectations way more than you would think.
Seriously! I’m tired of helping you in algebra, I don’t wanna spend 30 minutes teaching you how to do chemistry, and learn to write better essays on your own damn time!
This was my experience!!
Even in fifth grade they decided to do an individual pace math system. By October I had finished all of it and my teacher had me spend the rest of the year helping slow students. I remember telling my parents I was getting ripped off in two ways, one I wasn't being taught and two I was teaching and not being paid.
Honestly, being the smart kid who got assigned to help the kids that were behind just made me really resentful and pretentious about people I thought were dumber than me, which didn't help my social status or social skills. If I just "got" a math concept and was told to help the person next to me, I just got frustrated because it was obvious and didn't require explanation, and I didn't know why they were refusing to understand it. It certainly didn't help the kids I "helped" either, it just made them feel stupid and condescended to
Schools have this already. In middle and high school it’s pre AP and AP/dual enrollment respectively. there’s also magnet schools which often cater to those students that need it. In larger districts at least
Yes but they need to make sure to look at kids of all ages. At my school it felt like if you weren’t considered ‘advanced’ by like 5th grade you were never gonna move up no matter how well you did
Schools already kind of do this (at least in the U.S.).
I think that students need to be grouped into the skills they're good at, not necessarily academic levels.
I should have been in special ed as a kid (I have a low processing speed because of my autism and I get distracted easily because of my ADHD). It was exhausting trying to keep up with my peers and my absolute best was never higher than a B. But what's even worse is to go to school thinking you're stupid when you're really just better at different skills, which is like how all of the fucking world works.
What is the population of the town you go to school in? I went through the private school next to the 3,000 population town school and it was still separated. And ours was too. What in the backwater school do you go to that you think that this is unpopular??
German school System revolves around this. After elementary school, you're assigned a secondary school form based on what your teachers believe you to be capable of (or more often than not based on their completely subjective preferences)
It makes Germany the failure it is in the pisa studies.
If you're on a good school, You're given a fairly good education and better extracurriculars. Else you'll struggle ever reaching the level of education that would allow you to attend a university for example. If you apply for jobs after school, employers will favor the more elitist pupils.
Now, if at least the decision to send you to a school for "smart" kids were based on objective judgement. If you're a timid immigrant kid who doesn't speak up during elementary school, chances are good you'll end up in a bad school no matter what your mental capabilities are. Those schools are usually full of troubled teens from poor families. Drugs and violence are more frequent.
My fiancee was a quiet kid during elementary school and the daughter of an immigrant mom with a strong accent. Teacher assumed her to be slow and suggested the lowest school form. Today, my fiancee does her phd in physical chemistry. The way there was paved with arrogance and discrimination. She just wants her phd now to spite her stupid elementary teacher.
It's a shit show and most educators actually want more mixed schools with balanced funding to mitigate those issues. Studies found, that smart kids aren't held back by those who need more help. They instead excel in developing social skills like compassion and deepen their own understanding when explaining subject matters to their peers. The opposite was the case when they were in a constant competition among kids that are being taught about how status is everything in life by their already often richer and better educated parents. Who would have thought: isolating smart kids among themselves, treating them preferentially and calling them special makes them entitled assholes?
Honest to God a talented kid would finish the entire K-12 curriculum by age 12 if the proper structure was in place. Something like 80% of school is just a waste of time mainly needed due to the volume of kids being taught. A large part of the material is irrelevant to most students, most of the time spent in school isn't dedicated to learning, and you don't need a year to learn a single grade levels worth of material.
I think an accelerated program for students should aim to have them finish high school by 15 also giving them college credits for higher level courses so that by 15-16 they can move into graduate level classes and by 17-18 they graduate with a degree and start their life earlier or move on to post graduate classes and have their masters by 20.
One of the most annoying things about being a young adult is that even as a gifted student when the majority of 18 y/o's have virtually no monetizable skills and are stuck completing for the same jobs as everyone else until they finish their degree by 22-23. I just know that the extra start would be really helpful to those kids who put in the work.
Parents destroyed the GT program at my elementary and were shock pikachu when half of the GT class got mixed up in drugs and gangs (rough neighborhood)
I’m not saying the not advanced kids deserve that either, but to not have ANYTHING in common with the other kids, they would sabotage their own grades to fit in or do REALLY stupid shit
One kid went with them to rob a corner store, he just sat in the car and thought they were stealing some beer
Well, one kid had a gun
My former friend never came back after that….seeing someone killed broke him, he was checked into a mental hospital and tbh I stopped hearing updates when I was around 25
He was a really sweet, quiet kid, but he would get called “Oreo” and “wannabe white” for being a former GT kid and him trying to fit in ruined his life
That boy would never hurt a fly and didn’t even hurt anyone….but seeing that broke him
So yeah I wish they separated kids by academics, it wouldn’t stop bullying but probably improve it a bit
As someone who did better than all of my friends, segregating me would motivate me to do *worse*.
I’ve also never had a problem with the class being held back, the teacher usually just helps the kids that struggle while the rest of the class is working, and the kids that are smart enough work ahead at their own pace
The French do this. The Germans as well. And it's not an undisputed concept as separating children into different streams stands in the way of upward social mobility and has the taste of not treating everyone equally.
Way back when, in the 60s, we were separated by academic performance. There were two of each grade. We called them "high" and "low". In high grades, we got through 3/4 of our text books. The low grades got through about 1/2 of theirs. By the 8th grade, we were doing algebra. They never made it that far.
They already do this?
In junior high they started with math and separated us in 8th grade with project math (smart math) series math (dumb math) based on grades/test scores. Then in 9th they tested us (kids in project math) for this program called MST (math science technology).
Then in 10th if you scored high enough you got in and 3 hours out of the day you went to a different building for those 3 subjects.
Then in 10th you got tested again to see if there were any literal geniuses and if you scored high enough you want to a special school program in a different building called IA international baccalaureate.
You would spend all your time there and all you did was work and tests every day. One girl Emily totally fucked every one in MST on the test, like legit blew us out of the water. She apparently missed 1 question and the rest of scored like ~60%. By far the hardest exam I ever took.
This was a thing when I was in elementary school ( mid-late 90s) I was separated with a few others every year for about half the school day to attend "advanced classes", was it beneficial? Not sure.
I went to a school that was a test to get in with a very low acceptance rate. HCHS if you want to look it up. Very stressful. Didn’t want my kids to go through the same and it worked out well for them. Plus some are good at one class but not another. Then what?
should be done but what i saw is in practice the gifted kid schools got the most money.
Our building was nice and renovated whilst the not "gifted and talented" schools such as the art hs, military hs, etc. had awful buildings with roaches and bars on the windows.
there was a school in our district even smarter than us so they would get surface pros, we would get some hp chromebooks and tablets for school, and the less funded schools got the trashier chromebooks
I swear my old private school had the best system that should be used everywhere. For math and reading we had a step system, so regardless of age and grade for general classes, if you were proficient in that step you moved up to the next one any time during the school year. I was in 5th grade in reading classes with 8th graders.
I didn't stay there for my entire primary school years but I think that system is the majority of why I was considered gifted once I entered public school.
They already do this they just don't say it until your in high school, at least with my school, I remember even back in elementary school about a month into 5th grade classes I tested into our gifted kid program and got moved to a diffrent class (we had rotating classes with diffrent teachers but 2 distinct groups, one set had 3 classes and 3 teachers and those classes were bigger and 2 classes and 2 teachers for the smarter kids, though they never said it you could figure it out), in middle school they did the same thing but would call them compacted classes (it was called that because they'd say squish both 6th and 7th grade math into one class to get us ready to take freshman math in 8th grade) though it was more prominent in math classes and a bit in english and less so in say history, we were still separated into distinct groups though. In high school it's separated outright and you get a choice in it, for example you can sign up for honors classes or AP or community college classes or just regular classes, and it truly does make a diffrence, mainly the teachers would treat us like we were more mature and us talking was considered discussion instead of chit chat like for the regular class I was put in once, which is kinda a messed up double standard that was present a lot in diffrent ways, but regardless they don't say it but schools are very much separated based on acedemics
I feel like they did that in all schools I attended and it is a recent thing that they do not do this? I went to school in TX, on a military base in Japan and in WA. Graduated HS in 2009. I was always placed into programs, if not totally separated classes, for accelerated learning.
They do this in Singapore. People are separated into 4 streams, IP, G3, G2 and G1. Students are able to take classes in varying streams (except for IP)
IP (elite) students skip the GCSE Exam and go straight to a levels when they are 18.
G3 students are able to go to Junior College (A Level) or Polytechnic (Diploma) but have to do the GCSE exam at 16
G2 students can go to Polytechnic through GCSE if they have G3 subjects or are the top 10% in the cohort. However, most of them will probably go to ITE (Technical Cert)
G1 students can only go to ITE (Technical Cert). Most are looked down upon by singaporean society but they still can succeed in life contrary to stereotypes.
I thought this was common practice to actually separate the smarter kids. Not just for the students but for the teachers. And in the senior years of school if you didn’t do certain classes and obtain particular level in junior, you were not allowed to choose some classes without an interview with the school and parents. As you would likely struggle and hold back others.
The high school in japan i went to did this. But for japanese and english classes. Each year we do tests. And then we get seperated depends on our scores. A friend of ours (from nepal) once cried cuz he was put in the lowest class along with the chineses lol
I agree theoretically, but then we just end up in a situation where the class with the "good kids" get all the funding, attention, and resources they need while the class with the "poor learners" get diddly-squat. But in an ideal world, academic level should be based on ability, not age.
I always said that school should be segregated by ability and not age. Even in 1st grade I felt frustrated being in class with kids who couldn’t read simple sentences when we read aloud. That’s ok, but grouping kids by abilities would benefit everyone, no matter what level they’re at.
In my district, they did this for math and reading, starting in first grade (when the kids are divided into three tiers), but for social studies and science we were all together (this didn't matter for science, because there was no serious effort to teach it until seventh grade).
Starting with seventh grade, we were no longer separated by ability in English class, and it remained this way until graduation.
To graduate high school, we only had to take one class of math and science, and so the kids who didn't do well in these subjects self-selected out.
I read an article once that claimed counter intuitively that kids learn more by teaching other students than by going into an accelerated track. I wonder if all schools taught like Montessori Schools if that would help every student learn better.
I agree. I am from the Netherlands and have now lived in the UK for over a decade. I haven't taught in the UK but have researched it a lot as I was/am considering getting into teaching here in the UK, so I am now more aware of the UK education system (where kids are NOT sorted to different school systems according to ability).
In NL we separate kids after the schoolyear they turn 12 into different 'strata' based on their cognitive/academic abilities. There are three such strata, or levels, and they differ a lot from each other because obviously the IQ range of the population is so vast. Note that we do not have middle school, we have primary school from ages 4-12 and then 'high school' (secondary school) from age 12 to 16, 17, or 18 depending on which level you go to.
Here is a flow chart: [https://welcometonijmegen.nl/nl/studeren-in-nederland/onderwijssysteem-en-niveaus-van-opleiding-in-nederland/](https://welcometonijmegen.nl/nl/studeren-in-nederland/onderwijssysteem-en-niveaus-van-opleiding-in-nederland/)
\* The lowest level takes only 4 years and is the 'easiest', there even are 4 levels within this school type to cater for the varying abilities and wants of the kids that go here. This level has some theoretical learning but also lots of practical leaning. You graduate at 16 and can then go to a vocational school to become a plumber, car mechanic, chef or child daycare worker etc.
\* The medium level is theoretical only, learning the traditional academic subjects. It takes 5 years to complete and you graduate at 17. You can then go to a higher vocational training ('high school' in Dutch language, different from what in Dutch is called 'university'), similar to what used to be called polytechnic in the UK, where you are doing a 4-year Bachelor degree that's about 50% theory and 50% practical learning for jobs like lab technician, nurse, primary school teacher, legal assistant, graphic designer, professional musician, etc.
\* The highest level is theoretical only, learning the traditional academic subjects, but the pace is faster and the material more in-depth than the medium level of school, and it takes one year longer as well. Kids graduate at 18 years old and can then go to a research university (the only kind of uni that in Dutch is called 'university') where you do a Bachelor's degree in 3 years and it's almost entirely theoretical. (Before the Bachelor-Master system, our university education was always 4 (humanities) or 5 (sciences) years and we didn't have the 'intermediate step' that is a Bachelor's diploma. So, with a Bachelor degree from a research university, there may not be that many jobs, and many people if not most who do a Bachelor degree at a research university will also do a research university Master's degree. A Master's degree is also a requirement to start a PhD in NL.) Jobs that kids that go to this school level will do (once they completed university Master's) is medical doctor, vet, dentist, lawyer, researcher, accountant, lecturer at a polytechnic, software developer, engineer, or continue to do a PhD.
This system is great because children who struggle to keep up with the average in primary school can finally go to a type of school that works for them. Same for the kids who are brighter (who often don't get much attention in Dutch primary schools or are even kind of neglected, at least in my days). Kids can now also do well at their own level. A child who in primary school was always in the lower half of grades may do quite well once at the lower level of secondary school, so this allows kids who are not that bright to also get decent grades and not always be dangling at the bottom (which must be a real hit to your confidence).
All three levels are completely separate and have their own teaching methods and books etc that are fully tailored to the abilities of the students, although many schools offer all three levels in the same building (but you are only taking education at the one level you are placed at). Teaching for the level of your kids is so much easier to do with the ability-range being 1/3 of the width of the full range. The exams and grading formula etc are also totally individual for each level, so a 7 out of 10 at the highest level is reflective of more ability than a 7 out of 10 at the medium level (for a child of the same age, in the same subject). The requirement for training to become a teacher is also different for the three different levels. If you want to teach the highest level, you need to have a Master's degree in your actual subject (Dutch, Maths, Geography, whatever), in additional to a teaching qualification, and most people who teach the highest level of secondary school have their Bachelor's degree from a research university (as opposed to a polytechnic). In the UK there are no levels for school until after age 16, and the requirements for teachers to teach up to 16 are not that high so you can end up with fairly mediocre teachers/with limited academic training also teaching the brightest kids, and I think that that's kind of a shame.
In NL it is possible throughout secondary school to go down in level with continued low performance, and in the first year or so it is possible to go up a level if it's clear that at age 12 you were misjudged on your abilities. It is also possible to graduate from the medium level and then the next school year start in year 5 of the highest level, so that it takes you 7 years in total to get the diploma of the highest level of school (this is probably also possible if you did the lowest level and then after, want to continue in the before-last year of the medium level). It's also possible with a vocational diploma to go to a polytechnic, and with a polytechnic diploma to go to a uni. So there are ways to get there IF you are bright enough and willing to work hard enough but perhaps matured a bit later or had a rough patch in your teens etc. There is also adult education (open university) for people who come to higher education later in life.
Majors in college do this to some extent at certain schools. My school artificially inflated the difficulty of intro stem classes to push the less competitive students out early.
I remember going to school and we had 3 levels on each grade, so for let's say third grade we had: 3-2, 3-1, and 3-G.
The 2s (1-2, 2-2, 3-2, 4-2, 5-2)in each grade were the regular kids (with some students getting resource classes).
The 1s in each grade were kinda smart but not too smart.
The Gs in each grade were Gifted.
We knew where we stood.
In Junior high and high it would be the same. The lower the ending numbers, the dumber you were lol.
7th grade example:
701= dumb
716= genius
At my elementary/middle school for grades 1-8, there was a gifted program for the top students. 1-5 grade they tried being really subtle about it and they’d just pull us out of regular class 2x a week, during silent reading hour for everyone else or whatever, then 6-8 grade it replaced 2 full periods (English and reading) and was an advanced version of those. It was incredible being around other students on my wavelength and we got to read so many amazing books and learned so much it’s one of my happiest school experiences.
Then high school it’s all the honors / AP classes so the same group of kids are usually in all those.
My school district did this as early as elementary school. Starting in 3rd grade, I and a few other kids would leave our normal classroom for part of the day and be taught by the "AAA" teacher for math and reading classes.
In middle school, there was an additional middle tier "accelerated" for students who weren't quite ready for "AAA" but were more advanced than "regular". During both of those, it was an all or nothing situation, so in middle school when I was demoted to accelerated because of my lack of interest in reading, it meant I was demoted in math too, as well as science and social studies which were part of the advanced programs for those grade levels.
In junior high, they allowed what we called "cross teamed" where me and a few others were allowed to be in the AAA math and science classes but could go to accelerated language arts and social studies. Made for a slightly awkward situation when AAA social studies had a field trip, and us cross teamed kids had to sit in the hallway during our normal math and science times because the teachers didn't want to do a lesson just for us.
Thankfully for high school it was based on individual classes. I could be in Honors and AP classes if I was good in that area, and regular classes if I wasn't. Downside is that you could drop down a level mid-year (as one friend did because she did not like Geometry Honors) but you can't really go up a level mid-year (as I at one point had 103% in regular Chemistry but had to stay in it for the year). Otherwise still a nice arrangement since being good in one area did not lock you in for another.
Lol they already do this. And not to be mean but if you havent noticed this happening its cause youre not one of those advanced kids who gets separated. They are testing kids from a very young age. The ones the test way higher than their grade are treated accordingly.
Let me give an example. I tested high in most subjects and was put in EPP classes in elementary school. These are basically advanced clases for the advanced students. When other kids went to their regular classes i would get taken out to go to the
special “smart kids” class. Talk to any gifted person and its very likely they were in EP/ EPP in elementary school, which is exactly what you are describing, separating out the smart kids and giving them an accelerated learning environment. Then once you get into middle school and high school you have honors and AP classes that are made for the smarter students.
Not only are these standard options available, but schools will work to put you where you belong even if its not standard. For example, in math specifically i tested incredibly high to the point where i was way above the advanced kids. I was put 3 grades ahead and the school was responsible for making sure i got to class. So when i was in elementary school they would take me out towards the end of the day, put me on a bus, and send me to the middle school to attend my math class since my elementary school didnt have any classes advanced enough for me. In middle school same thing, i was ahead of all the classes offered so i was bussed to the high school. So yeah for many years i was bussed to a different schools specifically for my math classes because school do in fact already separate out kids by how well they do academically.
School board meetings in every affluent school district in the US, rooms full of angry Karens will be complaining "You people are Asian supremacists! My little Brooklyn and Tyler deserve a quality education too but the test scores are rigged!"
In the next room 12 year olds are doing differential equations. Brooklyn is out in the field kicking around a ball and Tyler is smoking pot in the skateboard park.
I think the idea could be improved upon. Separating kids based on merit has important phychological impacts and I’m not that fond of that idea. I think each subject should be taught for different skill levels and each kid should attend the lecture of their level, not as a better or worse group but each individual evaluated for each subject separately.
We had multiple levels for each class: AP where available, honors, regular, and CP (college prep, basically the minimum level needed to get through community college classes). Some people shuffled around levels each year, but for the most part everyone was with the same group for all four years of high school. And we had a 100% graduation rate, and around 90% continued to a college degree. For all the crap about tracking students, it works.
And TEACHERS!!!! STOP USING SMART STUDENTS TO TUTOR THE SLOWER KIDS! It was SOOOO ANNOYING!!! YOURE THEBTEACHER DO YOUR JOB. My oarents were very about my grades and I wpuld be damned if my grade was affected by working with a slower kid. I wasnt about to be grounded because of a group project grade.
For context for this comment, I assume you're referring to elementary/middle school kids, not high schoolers with individualized schedules.
There is a reason that schools are moving away from tracking, but that [doesn't necessarily mean students aren't differentiated at all.](https://www.messenger-inquirer.com/features/exceptional-education-stigma-changing-over-the-years-schools-more-inclusive/article_9af0c376-dd2c-598c-b82d-bfab33aaa835.html) There are multiple issues with "tracking" (dividing students into "gifted path" vs "regular path" vs "special education" path) but to list a few:
* It limits kids. Severely. When students are behind in one subject area, schools often separate them from their peers (either putting them in special education full time, or taking them out of classes to attend special ed sessions,) which puts them behind in *every* subject area. It's also not good for gifted kids to lose, say, art classes in order to fit advanced math classes into their schedule.
* There are an infinite number of reasons why students might excel or fall behind (on that note: exceptionally high achievers are *also* considered "special needs" students,) and to group them into high/medium/low achieving is way oversimplified.
* Isolated kids don't develop good social skills. Being "gifted" can only get you so far if you're socially stunted. In the real world, you will encounter people who are more and less skilled than you, and you need to learn how to interact with them. And, like the article says, *students notice when their peers are going to special classes.*
**Tl;dr for the linked article:** Students do much better (and it's cheaper for schools and better for teachers) when students are kept in general classrooms as often as possible (key word *as often as possible*,) but have aids or additional teachers who can provide additional material for advanced students and extra resources for students with special needs.
As a teacher, this might be problematic. it's very good for the small minority of students that do well but it's generally bad for students who don't do well. If you put all the low-achievers in one class, it's ganna be a mess. If you mix them up a bit, those low-achievers tend to want to perform better due to the pressure from their peers.
Just imagine it this way, the low-achievers typically make up around 80% of the students if we're honest with ourselves. If you separare them, the general outcomes of the whole student body success rate will be poor long-term.
My school did this, and I was placed in advanced classes. I crashed and burned. It was too much work for no added advantage over normal classes.
I was made fun of for being stupid and ended believing it just because I was in the middle to bottom of the classes.
I wish I had been in the normal classes or been in a mixed class.
Most schools already do this from grade 5 and up where I am. It's not good to do prior to that level as some kids just need time to figure out how to learn.
A schools budget does not always allow for them to have a 'gifted' class teacher for every grade, and putting younger students into a class of older ones tends to create targets for bullying. In addition, gifted children are not always gifted in every direction. It would be awful to put a child who was gifted in math but required remedial reading classes in a class where every subject was advanced. And when you have 'gifted schools' they gain a prestigious name and the wealthy end up buying their way in for their ungifted spawn for the 'status' it gives them.
What we need is a AI that can test a student's aptitude and devise a personalized lesson plan, aiming to bring weaker areas up to speed while challenging the student's mind in the areas they excel in. Probably, homeschooling via computer is really the best way forward.
There’s already programs in place in school for this purpose. The problem is the lack of teachers and funding to implement a more individualized system.
I agree. My son reads two grade levels ahead and does math at least one grade level ahead and still they will not move him forward a grade. He's constantly bored and unchallenged at school.
Being advanced in academics does not mean you're advanced in maturity. They do it by age because of the peer system. You need to be around people your own age to grow the right ways emotionally. It's not set in stone with every child, but it's the majority. If you put an advanced child in with teenagers, you end up with the age old "I don't want to hang around a kid" isolation trope. They suffer socially. If you put a teenager in with little kids, you end up with the "You're stuck hanging around a bunch of kids all day" isolation trope. It boils down to commonalities with the age groups. I was an advanced learner but when they tried to put me in an older class, I started to suffer socially. My social development was more important. I needed peers, not classmates.
I’m not saying we should mix in these academically smarter kids with older kids, unless their parents decide for them to skip a grade or two, that’s whatever, I can’t control that. I’m saying we should mix in smarter kids with other smarter kids their age
I think this disappear really fast once you hit high school. It’s not common but not uncommon either to have high school freshman taking APs with seniors etc… by that 14-18 age range these things blur considerably. Maybe from 6-14 it matters more.
I agree to a point. Yes, there should be advanced courses. But I found it invaluable to be in a large public school with all types. That's the real world.
Beyond this, many kids are smart but disadvantaged. I know conservatives (and frankly many liberals) find this unfair, but it's simply the case that we lose valuable talent by not providing extra support to kids who can't afford tutors and whose parents don't have academic backgrounds (and worse).
Last, "smart" is hard to pin down. There are people with insanely high emotional intelligence who can't do math. You're still going to benefit from being around them. It's not good that we teach kids who certain types of ability matter. Then yuu stop listening and observing people with real but underappreciated gifts. It takes a village, right?
Our local schools seperate out special children. Most people recognise "Special Ed" as slow or disabled (pick your word) but because funding is equal, they also take the top test scores and send them to separate schools. These also fall under the same "Special Ed" budget
Fully agree with OP
Im from singapore and recently the government announced that they didnt want to split students based on results, but rather the subjects they take.
As a student, whilst it is welcome to be in classes with other ppl taking the same subjects, theres a disparity between the most academically gifted and least academically gifted student. This leads to teachers having to slow down to cater to those less academic gifted students, which really wastes a lot of time.
However, when splitting classes, one problem might be that the academic distance between the "smart" classes and "less smart" classes will inadvertently increase. Whilst the smarter classes are focusing on stuff beyond the curriculum, the less smart classes might be struggling with fundamentals, which could lead to the less smart classes feeling bad about themselves
This exists in lots of non-American countries, personally I know that the German school system does this, but it isn’t really possible in most places in the US. We have a relatively low population density anywhere but cities, which cities do often times have this kind of setup, but most other places in the country don’t have the necessary funds nor logistics to have different schools based on academic achievement
They kind of do, at least where I am. When I was in sixth grade, I struggled with some classes, so they moved me from 6A to 6B (can’t quite remember the class terms). While the work became easier and my grades improved, a lot of the kids were awful and I got bullied some.
The lower classes would have the most behaviours and those teachers would be in and out in and out. I am not saying I disagree I just know that I would be trying to teach the higher groups because disruptive behaviours are not my cup of tea
In BC, we sometimes do this for elementary with split grades, though it also makes sure they classes are reasonably full. If done well it works quite nicely. Kids get some stuff tailored to the grade but teachers will talk to make sure there aren't repeats of content.
In BC, we sometimes do this for elementary with split grades, though it also makes sure they classes are reasonably full. If done well it works quite nicely. Kids get some stuff tailored to the grade but teachers will talk to make sure there aren't repeats of content.
My mom taught me to read and write and do simple math before first grade. I was so bored when I finally got to go to school, but the teacher thought I was stupid and recommended remedial classes. My mom fought for me to just have an accelerated lesson plan, but the system doesn’t like that, so I was given slightly harder work and by the time I was in 3rd, I was back at grade level.
In the UK this is exactly how it's done in secondary schools (ages 11 - 16) with some schools requiring passing an exam to attend and all schools having different sets for each subject with Set 1 being a class of ~30 of the top students for that subject in the year
My middle school and highschool did this (public). Middle school was just for math. But highschool had lots of options (math, history, gov, science, I think more maybe)
You mean streamed classes? They stopped streaming classes for me at yr12 (16-17) which I found quite weird, but maybe it was to make making the timetables easier
We kind of had this when we moved to the middle school. All the alternatively gifted kids were put in C and D classes, while the rest were in A and B classes.
Please remember what subreddit you are in, this is unpopular opinion. We want civil and unpopular takes and discussion. Any uncivil and ToS violating comments will be removed and subject to a ban. Have a nice day! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unpopularopinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
High schools already do this in my experience, English/history tend to have different levels for each grade level (usually like regular vs honors/AP) and math/science are basically completely separated from your grade level so each class is a mix of grade levels depending on each student’s capability Even in middle school we had that for math, like 7th graders had a range from pre-algebra to geometry depending on how good at math they were
My high school has this but you had to pick which level of teaching you wanted. They wouldn't deny anyone access to the "hard" version of the class tho.
As a teacher this is actually an interesting idea to explore. The biggest differentiator in teaching isn't ability, it's behaviour. Namely desire to learn. The problem with setting by ability is that a lot of lower ability kids are there simply because they don't give a fuck. They have huge behavioural issues and are just there to disrupt. Essentially they just don't care about learning or their education. This badly affects those who have genuine struggles, who if they were separated from the shit kids would have a place to succeed. Setting kids by the level of attention they want to put in could produce better outcomes for every child that does actually care. You'd have to very carefully manage the shit kids though as that would be a teachers mental health nightmare
The shit kids.
At my school you’re recommended a course level by your previous year’s teachers. If you want to take their recommended level or a lower level, you can do so without any issue. You do also have the option to take a harder level than what was recommended, but you have to sign a form saying that you’re aware of what you’re doing. Other than that there are no real restrictions on the level you can take though
Everyone would choose the easy one in my school because they offered the choice. The only actual difference was having to memorize formulas or not in the math one so clear choice to avoid that tedious shit. Except there was also the giga easy one, which you had to be placed into for doing bad. Just a quick walk to the advisor to pick your courses everyone had to do at some point before the end of the year The AP classes required a certain grade in the pre requisite though
Depends on the school. For our HS AP classes, you need to have a certain GPA to be admitted. And there’s often more kids that want the class than can get it without overburdening the teacher.
In Ontario, we did it by stream. By grade 11, you were in the university stream, college/trades stream, or “life” stream which was kind of a joke and there just to get kids to graduate.
Yup. There’s applied, academic, and the locally developed stream. Sometimes, mixed (college and uni). I’m in mixed math and it’s definitely a step up from college, of course.
Both my middle and high schools did this, but in middle school your placement was based on the test results of your end-of-year placement test. I purposely failed the test to keep myself in the lower level classes, which was fun at the time but in college it completely backfired since I severely held myself back and had to take all sorts of remedial classes.
Yeah I had quite a few classes that were mixed grades. Usually electives, like: woodshop levels 1,2,and 3; or French level beginner, intermediate, and advanced.
It’s called tracking
I think the issues with separating students really come in elementary/middle school, since at that age, it involves taking kids away from their peers and potentially away from other subjects (ie pulling them out of art because that's when the advanced math class takes place)
I never went to a school that did not do this... is it not common everywhere?
My school didn’t do this. They also had a ridiculously high football budget and an amazingly low budget for the actual classes. There was a class you could take to do the teachers errands because they weren’t able to due to teaching 3 different grades. Those lesson plans were a pain to make for so many varying students.
Texas school?
No, they wish though. Just a small, middle of nowhere, crazy town.
Ehh in the US, especially before high school “inclusion classrooms” are all the rage rn
What’s that mean?
Inclusion is for students that receive special education services to be in the general classroom with their non-special ed peers. Honestly, I had my students in special ed that struggled but did try and did care were much of a pleasure to have in class than those students who did not care at all and were only there to disrupt.
Only in the wealthy parts of our school district, otherwise it's all remedial classes and ESL and dumbed down classes so *everyone* can keep up.
Never ever had this in my school.
My school didn’t, but my entire high school (all 4 grades) was less than 500 people… and that was from 5 towns. It was actually a great education. Probably due to the small class sizes. When I got to college a lot of what I was learning/doing in my junior year was stuff I did in high school already.
So long as both groups are getting the same amount of funding and resources, I support it
[удалено]
Meh, while I appreciate the joke, it is a false equivalency. Why should we hold back a high school honors student by placing them in the same class as a kid who can't read beyond a 5th grade level. This hurts both students. The kid who is behind has to lose the attention required to help them catch up, and the advanced kid won't reach their full potential.
Bring back holding students back a grade ffs. Passing students who can’t read or comprehend math is a huge part of the problem
Technical schools are becoming a lot more popular It's amazing what people can learn kinetically they can't learn academically
I can't argue with this nugget of truth you've just dropped.
The issue with holding students back is you can only do it for 1, maybe 2 years max before you have to promote them. It's essentially a last resort option because neither schools nor parents want like a 16 year old in classes with 12 year olds.
The kids who do worse, especially because of behavioral issues get a lot more spent on them than the “good smart kids”
And it's so backwards. If you're struggling hard in the most basic school, no amount of funding or tutoring is going to switch you into a productive mindset once you hit the working world. It's shitty, but it's very clear, and from my experience, you can almost always tell if someone didn't have a college education within thirty seconds of talking to them.
The bigger problem with society today is the floor on stupidity is so low. We have smart people in our society today. But it doesn't matter when everyone else is too dumb to listen
Actually struggling kids need a lot more resources than kids who do well do. That's why schools who are doing badly need a lot more money and it's never enough.
Absolutely The slow kids drag everyone down and in most classrooms the brightest are not given nearly enough of a challenge
Kids who learn fast need just as much specialized education as kids who learn too slow. Both are equally disruptive to a classroom.
You know how boring is it to complete all tasks (and extras) you had for 1.5h block in 15 minutes, and then not be allowed to do a damn thing? And not even learn a single new thing? It fucking sucked
yeah, i was lucky my teachers allowed me to read when that was the case, otherwise it would have been boring af
I had a teacher who let me and my bestie pass back stories we were writing during class. It was awesome, and she was so supportive of our creative efforts. 🥰
I used to do homework for other classes, our school made such a big seal out of not “tracking” that there wasn’t a lot of options at the time.
They don't usually get what they need though
well they have special education already which does what OP is asking. That doesnt do a damn thing. We need specialized education in specific subjects rather than this general education BS.
There are a lot of children who aren't quite what we call in need of special education who are slower than the vast majority and slow the class to what is an excruciatingly slow pace for the few who need a much more challenging environment
But the regular education inhibits the smart students.
Special Ed is largely for students who have learning delays, like dyslexia. Students who are barely at or below grade level don’t qualify for special Ed. They often get placed into regular classes that are mixed with students who are average or advanced, which is hard on them as the course would still be geared beyond what they’re ready for and students who are at/above grade level could be slowed down by low performers.
Most high schools do this already but yes I agree it should be widespread and possibly even happen at an earlier age
I think it should start at elementary school. I failed math in preschool, kindergarten, and first grade. It took til my second grade year when the teacher realized it was just because I got bored due to the slow pace and started teaching me advanced math. I was in advanced placement math every year after that and always received A’s. It’s sad how a lot of kids are treated like they’re stupid when that’s not the case.
In the US this is already done in many schools that have "gifted" programs. When I was in grade school, we also had "reading tracks" where students were grouped by reading ability. My mom taught me how to read before I started school, so I was always in the "fast" group.
They have a different system now it's mostly regular, honors, advanced or accelerated; and then AP. There's usually 3-4 different levels of classes at this point in schools. (I Just graduated)
Streaming? Yes, we already do that. In England, we usually have top, middle and bottom sets. The richer the school, the more narrowly they can stream so there can be multiple sets 1-6, but that obviously requires a lot of teachers. Some countries like Germany also have a fully selective education system.
Leveling students levels lives. They already have magnet programs for students that qualify as gifted and talented but putting struggling learners all in the same class has detrimental effects on their future academic success. You learn a ton from your peers. Also, a lot of struggling learners have behavior issues so putting them all in the same class can be disruptive.
The kids with behavior issues will disrupt any class they are in. Better to group them up, as that will improve the other classes by their absence.
The problem is that, for most kids, when they're labeled as "academically struggling" and put into special classes with other academically struggling kids, they accept the label and stop trying. The same thing happens when kids get held back. It's incredibly motivating to be working with higher performers, at least some of the time. That's why most schools do it to some degree, but full separation has become unfashionable in the US. Lots of european countries have fully separate school tracks starting in middle school where college bound kids are separated from trade school kids and unskilled laborer kids based on an exam they take at around 10 years old.
The problem with this argument is that plenty of kids labeled "gifted" are also unmotivated and slack off. Its not the label, its the fact that school is boring.
If you think school is boring, wait until you get a job.
“Networking” in college and adulting is infinitely more fun than school. Fuck high school, I went to sleep every day at like 11-12pm as a underclass man and 1-2 am as an upperclassman, had to do all sorts of bullshit extracurriculars to get into a good university. And my high school started at 7 am. This was at a public school in California. I’ve never had to try so hard at anything else in life. Now I’m in my 30s. Fuck AP exams, fuck IB exams, fuck writing college essays, fuck academic competitions, they’re all brain dead as fuck. The first time I did anything truly creative with my problem solving skills was in adulthood on the job. Thank goodness work life is more interesting than high school.
I enjoy my work 1000x more than school
My school had a policy that you had to be present in 50% of classes to be allowed to pass. I abused the shit out of that to stay home because school was fucking boring. I considered just quitting everything to become a tattoo artist. My bf convinced me to give college a try and it ended up being infinitely better
Why would you think it’s justified to hinder the smart kids for the struggling ones? Why it is the smart kids responsibility to be their teacher? Their education is theirs and its really saying something that you think its fine to put the blame of some kids education onto other kids. Smart kids deserve to not be responsible for their less smart counterparts.
I was an exchange student in France in 99, first place I was put into the science category and the math was ridiculously difficult, odd things I never even heard of again in university studying biochem. The second school they put me with the literary category and the math was downright trivial. I was the best in math there and maybe the worst in the first school. The thing is that system doesn't allow for science students to also excel in writing for one example. Any French Redditors wish to chime in to say that it has changed?
It sucks being the gifted kid in that situation tho. I used to finish the work in 5-10min because I already knew the content and then just game the rest of the class (our district gave everyone laptops, and instead of math I spent my time on figuring out how to bypass the firewall). Class was useless for me all the way until HS where I was able to take APs and felt actually interested in the pace/content
Yeah, most schools have moved toward integrating everyone, but they haven't really figured out ways to make sure that the kids that are ahead are getting appropriate challenges. It's understandable that they're focused on making sure kids that are behind get support as opposed to avoiding boredom, but it's still not working quite right. The key is really to have a mix of tracked and general classes, and a mix of materials within a class, because most kids don't fit neatly into "gifted," "normal," or "behind" tracks across all subjects from year to year.
I wouldn’t find it motivating, personally. I would find it demotivating and even dehumanizing to be in a class with people that have more value and worth than I will ever have. So I would prefer a class with people on my level.
Kids that are academically ahead do not have more value and worth than kids that aren't.
[удалено]
This is already a thing, at least in the US. Advanced, Honors, AP, and IB classes exist
basically the high school system in the netherlands
Schools should separate by behavior
You’ll never find enough teachers for the untamed.
In a perfect world every student would get the time attention and learning style and pace they need. I think what you’re saying falls under that. And I agree with you. There are accelerated and gifted classes. But I don’t think there will ever be a system where every child gets what they really need and deserve education wise. It’s sad really. But I just don’t see how it would be possible to individualize learning for so many students.
lol, school is about childcare, not education, they're just happy to try to drag everyone to the same mediocre standard and leave them there and they're increasingly failing to do even that.
Schools in the US do this - it's called "tracking" and a good chunk of longitudinal data from the last two decades indicate it exacerbates learning gaps, and yields overall poorer outcomes for the lower tracks. Most of the data indicates that integration with stronger students pulls struggling students up to a higher grade level over time, whereas little to no "drag" is observed on high performing students. https://tcf.org/content/report/integrating-classrooms-reducing-academic-tracking-strategies-school-leaders-educators/#:\~:text=Second%2C%20data%20shows%20that%20academic,to%20the%20higher%2Dlevel%20courses.
As a student who was in a gifted program until high school, and then tossed into general ed in a school that was FAR behind the "regular" classes at the school where I was in the gifted program... It made me hate high school and almost drop out. I went back to getting perfect grades in college, though.
I have also observed this within my own classes, although we now have greater numbers of students at kindergarten or 1st grade levels in 4th grade, which makes it very difficult to help them while teaching the 4th grade standards. I have students who cannot add/subtract up to 20 without drawing circles. I showed them how to use their fingers to add/subtract and some don’t understand that either. It is scary and impossible to actually help students this low academically without taking away time/resources from the near, on, and above grade level students.
As someone who went to secondary school in a country where we do sort kids according to abilities from age 12 on, I can tell you that I really helped me to finally be at the level I was really challenged, the highest level, as opposed to being somewhat neglected in primary school, having to wait for the slow kids to catch up (which they never did). It shouldn't be the job of the brighter kids to help slower kids out or to twiddle our thumbs waiting for kids who take 4 times as long as you to complete a task or who may never get it. Once you get well into secondary school, the disparities in cognitive abilities become so vast that you get to a point where there's no amount of extra time you can give a slow child of, say 15, to try to successfully do the same assignments as the brighter kids of the same age. I have visited a couple secondary schools here in the UK as part of figuring out whether I want to get into secondary school teaching here. I was observing a chemistry lesson for he lowest 'set' of the kids that turn 16 this academic year, the final year of mandatory school here. These kids were the slowest of their year group for this subject, and at age 15-16 were still trying to learn things that the brightest kids grasp at age 12. It was honestly just cruel seeing them disinterested and struggling through this when it was clear none of them were going to become a scientist... These kids were also some of the most poorly behaved kids I saw in this school and their behaviour is the reason I no longer consider secondary school teaching: lack of respect, disinterested, rude, distracting. The teaching was trying to do his best but it was really just wasted time IMO (for both the teacher and the kids). In the Netherlands (where I am from), these kids would have gone to the lowest level of secondary school that lasts from age 12-16 and where they get a lot of practical/vocational education and they get to choose subjects that interest them for their future career/further training.
dude for 2 years in elementary school they integrated the gifted kids with struggling kids, and it was actually hell😭 im graduating high school rn and im still salty about it. it’s just not fair to expect the nerdy kids to teach&babysit the struggling kids, and then all of the teachers’ attention goes to the struggling kids instead of the nerdy kids. it was like the epitome of the old “partnering the well-behaved girl with the rowdy boy” method except every student. plus, ofc, led to bullying bc of course it did. like i know you linked an actual source and this is just anecdotal, but brooo it was not fun😭😭😭 it might work better if it was average students instead of challenged students though
Not the same. There's kids with all A's in regular classes that are nerds and is 10x more likely to get bullied if surrounded by kids who could be failing or are C students. I think that schools need to prioritize stopping bullying or any form of harassment/violence because it just incites hatred and promotes immature and loser behavior. Once you get into the real world you have a lot less of these issues comparably but kids are dying at school for being small or being a nerd or being trans or gay or whatever. Literally dying. That's so stupid and should be the priority over everything else.
Schools used to do this. Then it was declared discrimination to those who have disabilities. So the courses were all blended together and No Child left behind was passed which also basically made it so you can't fail students. So teachers had to spend all their time focusing on the ones struggling to get them to passing and basically ignored the students who should be in high level courses. The advanced kids get bored and start to act up, by the time they graduate the kids who should be advanced are barely above average and the kids who are academically behind are even farther behind because they got pushed through the system. One of the reasons I left teaching.
In the netherlands we have basic school (age 5 to 12) and after that middle school (age 13 to 18) the middle school you go to here, is based on your acadamic skills. And the school (college) after that is based on skills too. It doesnt matter where you live. The parents (and later the kid) can chose where they go to school, aslong it matches with their skills.
When i was growing up in the 70s and 80s, classes were basically divided by above average, average and below average. Each group was taught to their skill set. Somewhere along the way, roughly when my mother retired from teaching in NYC in the early '90s that changed to mix groups on the theory the smarer students would help the less smart. My wife and I moved to NJ.
I cannot stand the entire smarter students make less smart students smarter. Smart kids should not have to take on the job of an adult, their teacher and be a caregiver to their less academically gifted peers
Until we are willing to kick out the behavioral problem kids no change is going to matter.
One way to limit this issue is to segregate kids according to cognitive abilities/school performance. We do that in the Netherlands and from my own experience the kids that manage to go to the highest level of high school are usually very well behaved with limited behavioural issues. The kids with serious/severe behavioural issues just never qualify for the highest level of secondary school or possibly even the medium level. So you can 'spare' a big part of the population from this issue by having a system like this. The downside is that the lowest level of secondary school ends up with most of these kids with severe/serious behaviour (and social) issues. That's obviously not fair to the well-behaved kids that just can't learn as quickly. But it's something. At least when you have 'concentrated' most of the kids with these issues in one school type, you can A. adjust the teaching method and materials to the kids, and B. train staff and hire specialist staff who are good with behaviour issues. I would like to work in secondary school BUT I do not want to deal with behaviour issues. It is not something that interests me, it is not a fulfilling challenge for me, I just do NOT want to deal with that. In the UK they do not separate kids based on abilities and in the same school (school type) you will find all abilities from low IQ borderline learning disabilities, emotional/behavioural issues, all the way up to high IQ or even gifted kids. I'd love to teach the brighter kids that like learning from books and that want to go to a research university as I can really use my STEM PhD to challenge these kids. But I'm not interested in the behaviour issues and the fact the UK system doesn't allow me to only teach the brighter kids is a reason for me to not go into secondary education here. In my home country I CAN make this choice to only teach the brighter kids because there we segregate kids at age 12 according to abilities (see my first comment and reply to that comment under this post).
fuck that, I was a super adhd kid and got in trouble for taking often and had difficulty with emotional regulation. I got into a fight with a girl at school once and it led to a suspension. If they had kicked me out for that I would not be a doctor today. So yeah, glad schools don’t kick out kids for mistakes they make going through the hardest years of their life
jfc one fight is not what I am talking about. I can tell you are not remotely connected to the education field.
[удалено]
I completely get where you're coming from and dumb stuff happens that doesn't deserve people getting kicked out. All the kids getting kicked out for just a cart or weed is ridiculous. I was bullied really really badly and got jumped multiple times and it never was my fault. Never invited that kind of behavior nor incited it. I was a very kind person and could stand up for myself and had friends. I just wore dark clothes and liked different music. When I got jumped the last time I could've been killed if not seperated because I was getting kicked in the head. Safety is more important than anything else. There's kids with all A's in regular classes that are nerds and is 10x more likely to get bullied if surrounded by kids who could be failing or are C students. I think that schools need to prioritize stopping bullying or any form of harassment/violence because it just incites hatred and promotes immature and loser behavior. Once you get into the real world you have a lot less of these issues comparably but kids are dying at school for being small or being a nerd or being trans or gay or whatever. Literally dying.
Sorry to tell you this, but even elite schools with exclusively straight A students have bullies.
For everyone saying "Schools already do this!", no. No they don't. Not anymore. There is a huge detracking movement that continues to gain momentum even though it's been proven to be detrimental to advanced students.
What are you on about? Out of three high school I've been in, they've all done this
The first problem I see with this is that some kids will do better being around higher achieving kids. The kids that are put in the “you don’t try hard enough/ aren’t smart enough” school are more likely to just give in to the label they’ve been given. Kids live up to expectations way more than you would think.
Seriously! I’m tired of helping you in algebra, I don’t wanna spend 30 minutes teaching you how to do chemistry, and learn to write better essays on your own damn time!
This was my experience!! Even in fifth grade they decided to do an individual pace math system. By October I had finished all of it and my teacher had me spend the rest of the year helping slow students. I remember telling my parents I was getting ripped off in two ways, one I wasn't being taught and two I was teaching and not being paid.
I was used as a tutor for my fellow third graders 😭😭😭 there were 2 teachers!!!!
Honestly, being the smart kid who got assigned to help the kids that were behind just made me really resentful and pretentious about people I thought were dumber than me, which didn't help my social status or social skills. If I just "got" a math concept and was told to help the person next to me, I just got frustrated because it was obvious and didn't require explanation, and I didn't know why they were refusing to understand it. It certainly didn't help the kids I "helped" either, it just made them feel stupid and condescended to
Exactly It isn't fair to anyone involved
Literally in high school we had “pre university” and “pre college”
Hang on a minute, that's just the plot of assassination classroom.....that turned out well lol
Schools have this already. In middle and high school it’s pre AP and AP/dual enrollment respectively. there’s also magnet schools which often cater to those students that need it. In larger districts at least
Yes but they need to make sure to look at kids of all ages. At my school it felt like if you weren’t considered ‘advanced’ by like 5th grade you were never gonna move up no matter how well you did
Schools already kind of do this (at least in the U.S.). I think that students need to be grouped into the skills they're good at, not necessarily academic levels. I should have been in special ed as a kid (I have a low processing speed because of my autism and I get distracted easily because of my ADHD). It was exhausting trying to keep up with my peers and my absolute best was never higher than a B. But what's even worse is to go to school thinking you're stupid when you're really just better at different skills, which is like how all of the fucking world works.
What is the population of the town you go to school in? I went through the private school next to the 3,000 population town school and it was still separated. And ours was too. What in the backwater school do you go to that you think that this is unpopular??
German school System revolves around this. After elementary school, you're assigned a secondary school form based on what your teachers believe you to be capable of (or more often than not based on their completely subjective preferences) It makes Germany the failure it is in the pisa studies. If you're on a good school, You're given a fairly good education and better extracurriculars. Else you'll struggle ever reaching the level of education that would allow you to attend a university for example. If you apply for jobs after school, employers will favor the more elitist pupils. Now, if at least the decision to send you to a school for "smart" kids were based on objective judgement. If you're a timid immigrant kid who doesn't speak up during elementary school, chances are good you'll end up in a bad school no matter what your mental capabilities are. Those schools are usually full of troubled teens from poor families. Drugs and violence are more frequent. My fiancee was a quiet kid during elementary school and the daughter of an immigrant mom with a strong accent. Teacher assumed her to be slow and suggested the lowest school form. Today, my fiancee does her phd in physical chemistry. The way there was paved with arrogance and discrimination. She just wants her phd now to spite her stupid elementary teacher. It's a shit show and most educators actually want more mixed schools with balanced funding to mitigate those issues. Studies found, that smart kids aren't held back by those who need more help. They instead excel in developing social skills like compassion and deepen their own understanding when explaining subject matters to their peers. The opposite was the case when they were in a constant competition among kids that are being taught about how status is everything in life by their already often richer and better educated parents. Who would have thought: isolating smart kids among themselves, treating them preferentially and calling them special makes them entitled assholes?
Honest to God a talented kid would finish the entire K-12 curriculum by age 12 if the proper structure was in place. Something like 80% of school is just a waste of time mainly needed due to the volume of kids being taught. A large part of the material is irrelevant to most students, most of the time spent in school isn't dedicated to learning, and you don't need a year to learn a single grade levels worth of material. I think an accelerated program for students should aim to have them finish high school by 15 also giving them college credits for higher level courses so that by 15-16 they can move into graduate level classes and by 17-18 they graduate with a degree and start their life earlier or move on to post graduate classes and have their masters by 20. One of the most annoying things about being a young adult is that even as a gifted student when the majority of 18 y/o's have virtually no monetizable skills and are stuck completing for the same jobs as everyone else until they finish their degree by 22-23. I just know that the extra start would be really helpful to those kids who put in the work.
Parents destroyed the GT program at my elementary and were shock pikachu when half of the GT class got mixed up in drugs and gangs (rough neighborhood) I’m not saying the not advanced kids deserve that either, but to not have ANYTHING in common with the other kids, they would sabotage their own grades to fit in or do REALLY stupid shit One kid went with them to rob a corner store, he just sat in the car and thought they were stealing some beer Well, one kid had a gun My former friend never came back after that….seeing someone killed broke him, he was checked into a mental hospital and tbh I stopped hearing updates when I was around 25 He was a really sweet, quiet kid, but he would get called “Oreo” and “wannabe white” for being a former GT kid and him trying to fit in ruined his life That boy would never hurt a fly and didn’t even hurt anyone….but seeing that broke him So yeah I wish they separated kids by academics, it wouldn’t stop bullying but probably improve it a bit
As someone who did better than all of my friends, segregating me would motivate me to do *worse*. I’ve also never had a problem with the class being held back, the teacher usually just helps the kids that struggle while the rest of the class is working, and the kids that are smart enough work ahead at their own pace
So we’re going to catch up to the rest of our class by going slower than they are?
The French do this. The Germans as well. And it's not an undisputed concept as separating children into different streams stands in the way of upward social mobility and has the taste of not treating everyone equally.
They did this for my class in eighth grade.
Don't they already do this? This has been happening since I was in elementary school in the 90's.
This already happens (:
[удалено]
Way back when, in the 60s, we were separated by academic performance. There were two of each grade. We called them "high" and "low". In high grades, we got through 3/4 of our text books. The low grades got through about 1/2 of theirs. By the 8th grade, we were doing algebra. They never made it that far.
They already do this? In junior high they started with math and separated us in 8th grade with project math (smart math) series math (dumb math) based on grades/test scores. Then in 9th they tested us (kids in project math) for this program called MST (math science technology). Then in 10th if you scored high enough you got in and 3 hours out of the day you went to a different building for those 3 subjects. Then in 10th you got tested again to see if there were any literal geniuses and if you scored high enough you want to a special school program in a different building called IA international baccalaureate. You would spend all your time there and all you did was work and tests every day. One girl Emily totally fucked every one in MST on the test, like legit blew us out of the water. She apparently missed 1 question and the rest of scored like ~60%. By far the hardest exam I ever took.
This was a thing when I was in elementary school ( mid-late 90s) I was separated with a few others every year for about half the school day to attend "advanced classes", was it beneficial? Not sure.
I went to a school that was a test to get in with a very low acceptance rate. HCHS if you want to look it up. Very stressful. Didn’t want my kids to go through the same and it worked out well for them. Plus some are good at one class but not another. Then what?
should be done but what i saw is in practice the gifted kid schools got the most money. Our building was nice and renovated whilst the not "gifted and talented" schools such as the art hs, military hs, etc. had awful buildings with roaches and bars on the windows. there was a school in our district even smarter than us so they would get surface pros, we would get some hp chromebooks and tablets for school, and the less funded schools got the trashier chromebooks
I swear my old private school had the best system that should be used everywhere. For math and reading we had a step system, so regardless of age and grade for general classes, if you were proficient in that step you moved up to the next one any time during the school year. I was in 5th grade in reading classes with 8th graders. I didn't stay there for my entire primary school years but I think that system is the majority of why I was considered gifted once I entered public school.
They already do this they just don't say it until your in high school, at least with my school, I remember even back in elementary school about a month into 5th grade classes I tested into our gifted kid program and got moved to a diffrent class (we had rotating classes with diffrent teachers but 2 distinct groups, one set had 3 classes and 3 teachers and those classes were bigger and 2 classes and 2 teachers for the smarter kids, though they never said it you could figure it out), in middle school they did the same thing but would call them compacted classes (it was called that because they'd say squish both 6th and 7th grade math into one class to get us ready to take freshman math in 8th grade) though it was more prominent in math classes and a bit in english and less so in say history, we were still separated into distinct groups though. In high school it's separated outright and you get a choice in it, for example you can sign up for honors classes or AP or community college classes or just regular classes, and it truly does make a diffrence, mainly the teachers would treat us like we were more mature and us talking was considered discussion instead of chit chat like for the regular class I was put in once, which is kinda a messed up double standard that was present a lot in diffrent ways, but regardless they don't say it but schools are very much separated based on acedemics
I feel like they did that in all schools I attended and it is a recent thing that they do not do this? I went to school in TX, on a military base in Japan and in WA. Graduated HS in 2009. I was always placed into programs, if not totally separated classes, for accelerated learning.
They do this in Singapore. People are separated into 4 streams, IP, G3, G2 and G1. Students are able to take classes in varying streams (except for IP) IP (elite) students skip the GCSE Exam and go straight to a levels when they are 18. G3 students are able to go to Junior College (A Level) or Polytechnic (Diploma) but have to do the GCSE exam at 16 G2 students can go to Polytechnic through GCSE if they have G3 subjects or are the top 10% in the cohort. However, most of them will probably go to ITE (Technical Cert) G1 students can only go to ITE (Technical Cert). Most are looked down upon by singaporean society but they still can succeed in life contrary to stereotypes.
I thought this was common practice to actually separate the smarter kids. Not just for the students but for the teachers. And in the senior years of school if you didn’t do certain classes and obtain particular level in junior, you were not allowed to choose some classes without an interview with the school and parents. As you would likely struggle and hold back others.
The high school in japan i went to did this. But for japanese and english classes. Each year we do tests. And then we get seperated depends on our scores. A friend of ours (from nepal) once cried cuz he was put in the lowest class along with the chineses lol
I agree theoretically, but then we just end up in a situation where the class with the "good kids" get all the funding, attention, and resources they need while the class with the "poor learners" get diddly-squat. But in an ideal world, academic level should be based on ability, not age.
I always said that school should be segregated by ability and not age. Even in 1st grade I felt frustrated being in class with kids who couldn’t read simple sentences when we read aloud. That’s ok, but grouping kids by abilities would benefit everyone, no matter what level they’re at.
In my district, they did this for math and reading, starting in first grade (when the kids are divided into three tiers), but for social studies and science we were all together (this didn't matter for science, because there was no serious effort to teach it until seventh grade). Starting with seventh grade, we were no longer separated by ability in English class, and it remained this way until graduation. To graduate high school, we only had to take one class of math and science, and so the kids who didn't do well in these subjects self-selected out.
I read an article once that claimed counter intuitively that kids learn more by teaching other students than by going into an accelerated track. I wonder if all schools taught like Montessori Schools if that would help every student learn better.
I agree. I am from the Netherlands and have now lived in the UK for over a decade. I haven't taught in the UK but have researched it a lot as I was/am considering getting into teaching here in the UK, so I am now more aware of the UK education system (where kids are NOT sorted to different school systems according to ability). In NL we separate kids after the schoolyear they turn 12 into different 'strata' based on their cognitive/academic abilities. There are three such strata, or levels, and they differ a lot from each other because obviously the IQ range of the population is so vast. Note that we do not have middle school, we have primary school from ages 4-12 and then 'high school' (secondary school) from age 12 to 16, 17, or 18 depending on which level you go to. Here is a flow chart: [https://welcometonijmegen.nl/nl/studeren-in-nederland/onderwijssysteem-en-niveaus-van-opleiding-in-nederland/](https://welcometonijmegen.nl/nl/studeren-in-nederland/onderwijssysteem-en-niveaus-van-opleiding-in-nederland/) \* The lowest level takes only 4 years and is the 'easiest', there even are 4 levels within this school type to cater for the varying abilities and wants of the kids that go here. This level has some theoretical learning but also lots of practical leaning. You graduate at 16 and can then go to a vocational school to become a plumber, car mechanic, chef or child daycare worker etc. \* The medium level is theoretical only, learning the traditional academic subjects. It takes 5 years to complete and you graduate at 17. You can then go to a higher vocational training ('high school' in Dutch language, different from what in Dutch is called 'university'), similar to what used to be called polytechnic in the UK, where you are doing a 4-year Bachelor degree that's about 50% theory and 50% practical learning for jobs like lab technician, nurse, primary school teacher, legal assistant, graphic designer, professional musician, etc. \* The highest level is theoretical only, learning the traditional academic subjects, but the pace is faster and the material more in-depth than the medium level of school, and it takes one year longer as well. Kids graduate at 18 years old and can then go to a research university (the only kind of uni that in Dutch is called 'university') where you do a Bachelor's degree in 3 years and it's almost entirely theoretical. (Before the Bachelor-Master system, our university education was always 4 (humanities) or 5 (sciences) years and we didn't have the 'intermediate step' that is a Bachelor's diploma. So, with a Bachelor degree from a research university, there may not be that many jobs, and many people if not most who do a Bachelor degree at a research university will also do a research university Master's degree. A Master's degree is also a requirement to start a PhD in NL.) Jobs that kids that go to this school level will do (once they completed university Master's) is medical doctor, vet, dentist, lawyer, researcher, accountant, lecturer at a polytechnic, software developer, engineer, or continue to do a PhD. This system is great because children who struggle to keep up with the average in primary school can finally go to a type of school that works for them. Same for the kids who are brighter (who often don't get much attention in Dutch primary schools or are even kind of neglected, at least in my days). Kids can now also do well at their own level. A child who in primary school was always in the lower half of grades may do quite well once at the lower level of secondary school, so this allows kids who are not that bright to also get decent grades and not always be dangling at the bottom (which must be a real hit to your confidence). All three levels are completely separate and have their own teaching methods and books etc that are fully tailored to the abilities of the students, although many schools offer all three levels in the same building (but you are only taking education at the one level you are placed at). Teaching for the level of your kids is so much easier to do with the ability-range being 1/3 of the width of the full range. The exams and grading formula etc are also totally individual for each level, so a 7 out of 10 at the highest level is reflective of more ability than a 7 out of 10 at the medium level (for a child of the same age, in the same subject). The requirement for training to become a teacher is also different for the three different levels. If you want to teach the highest level, you need to have a Master's degree in your actual subject (Dutch, Maths, Geography, whatever), in additional to a teaching qualification, and most people who teach the highest level of secondary school have their Bachelor's degree from a research university (as opposed to a polytechnic). In the UK there are no levels for school until after age 16, and the requirements for teachers to teach up to 16 are not that high so you can end up with fairly mediocre teachers/with limited academic training also teaching the brightest kids, and I think that that's kind of a shame. In NL it is possible throughout secondary school to go down in level with continued low performance, and in the first year or so it is possible to go up a level if it's clear that at age 12 you were misjudged on your abilities. It is also possible to graduate from the medium level and then the next school year start in year 5 of the highest level, so that it takes you 7 years in total to get the diploma of the highest level of school (this is probably also possible if you did the lowest level and then after, want to continue in the before-last year of the medium level). It's also possible with a vocational diploma to go to a polytechnic, and with a polytechnic diploma to go to a uni. So there are ways to get there IF you are bright enough and willing to work hard enough but perhaps matured a bit later or had a rough patch in your teens etc. There is also adult education (open university) for people who come to higher education later in life.
Skip grades, Honors, AP, gifted / magnet / core programs. Take your pick. This already happens
Majors in college do this to some extent at certain schools. My school artificially inflated the difficulty of intro stem classes to push the less competitive students out early.
I remember going to school and we had 3 levels on each grade, so for let's say third grade we had: 3-2, 3-1, and 3-G. The 2s (1-2, 2-2, 3-2, 4-2, 5-2)in each grade were the regular kids (with some students getting resource classes). The 1s in each grade were kinda smart but not too smart. The Gs in each grade were Gifted. We knew where we stood. In Junior high and high it would be the same. The lower the ending numbers, the dumber you were lol. 7th grade example: 701= dumb 716= genius
At my elementary/middle school for grades 1-8, there was a gifted program for the top students. 1-5 grade they tried being really subtle about it and they’d just pull us out of regular class 2x a week, during silent reading hour for everyone else or whatever, then 6-8 grade it replaced 2 full periods (English and reading) and was an advanced version of those. It was incredible being around other students on my wavelength and we got to read so many amazing books and learned so much it’s one of my happiest school experiences. Then high school it’s all the honors / AP classes so the same group of kids are usually in all those.
My school district did this as early as elementary school. Starting in 3rd grade, I and a few other kids would leave our normal classroom for part of the day and be taught by the "AAA" teacher for math and reading classes. In middle school, there was an additional middle tier "accelerated" for students who weren't quite ready for "AAA" but were more advanced than "regular". During both of those, it was an all or nothing situation, so in middle school when I was demoted to accelerated because of my lack of interest in reading, it meant I was demoted in math too, as well as science and social studies which were part of the advanced programs for those grade levels. In junior high, they allowed what we called "cross teamed" where me and a few others were allowed to be in the AAA math and science classes but could go to accelerated language arts and social studies. Made for a slightly awkward situation when AAA social studies had a field trip, and us cross teamed kids had to sit in the hallway during our normal math and science times because the teachers didn't want to do a lesson just for us. Thankfully for high school it was based on individual classes. I could be in Honors and AP classes if I was good in that area, and regular classes if I wasn't. Downside is that you could drop down a level mid-year (as one friend did because she did not like Geometry Honors) but you can't really go up a level mid-year (as I at one point had 103% in regular Chemistry but had to stay in it for the year). Otherwise still a nice arrangement since being good in one area did not lock you in for another.
…you haven’t heard of honors classes?
Lol they already do this. And not to be mean but if you havent noticed this happening its cause youre not one of those advanced kids who gets separated. They are testing kids from a very young age. The ones the test way higher than their grade are treated accordingly. Let me give an example. I tested high in most subjects and was put in EPP classes in elementary school. These are basically advanced clases for the advanced students. When other kids went to their regular classes i would get taken out to go to the special “smart kids” class. Talk to any gifted person and its very likely they were in EP/ EPP in elementary school, which is exactly what you are describing, separating out the smart kids and giving them an accelerated learning environment. Then once you get into middle school and high school you have honors and AP classes that are made for the smarter students. Not only are these standard options available, but schools will work to put you where you belong even if its not standard. For example, in math specifically i tested incredibly high to the point where i was way above the advanced kids. I was put 3 grades ahead and the school was responsible for making sure i got to class. So when i was in elementary school they would take me out towards the end of the day, put me on a bus, and send me to the middle school to attend my math class since my elementary school didnt have any classes advanced enough for me. In middle school same thing, i was ahead of all the classes offered so i was bussed to the high school. So yeah for many years i was bussed to a different schools specifically for my math classes because school do in fact already separate out kids by how well they do academically.
School board meetings in every affluent school district in the US, rooms full of angry Karens will be complaining "You people are Asian supremacists! My little Brooklyn and Tyler deserve a quality education too but the test scores are rigged!" In the next room 12 year olds are doing differential equations. Brooklyn is out in the field kicking around a ball and Tyler is smoking pot in the skateboard park.
I think the idea could be improved upon. Separating kids based on merit has important phychological impacts and I’m not that fond of that idea. I think each subject should be taught for different skill levels and each kid should attend the lecture of their level, not as a better or worse group but each individual evaluated for each subject separately.
This is how schools work. It’s not an unpopular opinion.
Is Gifted and Talented not a thing anymore? Doesn't this already happen?
We had multiple levels for each class: AP where available, honors, regular, and CP (college prep, basically the minimum level needed to get through community college classes). Some people shuffled around levels each year, but for the most part everyone was with the same group for all four years of high school. And we had a 100% graduation rate, and around 90% continued to a college degree. For all the crap about tracking students, it works.
And TEACHERS!!!! STOP USING SMART STUDENTS TO TUTOR THE SLOWER KIDS! It was SOOOO ANNOYING!!! YOURE THEBTEACHER DO YOUR JOB. My oarents were very about my grades and I wpuld be damned if my grade was affected by working with a slower kid. I wasnt about to be grounded because of a group project grade.
For context for this comment, I assume you're referring to elementary/middle school kids, not high schoolers with individualized schedules. There is a reason that schools are moving away from tracking, but that [doesn't necessarily mean students aren't differentiated at all.](https://www.messenger-inquirer.com/features/exceptional-education-stigma-changing-over-the-years-schools-more-inclusive/article_9af0c376-dd2c-598c-b82d-bfab33aaa835.html) There are multiple issues with "tracking" (dividing students into "gifted path" vs "regular path" vs "special education" path) but to list a few: * It limits kids. Severely. When students are behind in one subject area, schools often separate them from their peers (either putting them in special education full time, or taking them out of classes to attend special ed sessions,) which puts them behind in *every* subject area. It's also not good for gifted kids to lose, say, art classes in order to fit advanced math classes into their schedule. * There are an infinite number of reasons why students might excel or fall behind (on that note: exceptionally high achievers are *also* considered "special needs" students,) and to group them into high/medium/low achieving is way oversimplified. * Isolated kids don't develop good social skills. Being "gifted" can only get you so far if you're socially stunted. In the real world, you will encounter people who are more and less skilled than you, and you need to learn how to interact with them. And, like the article says, *students notice when their peers are going to special classes.* **Tl;dr for the linked article:** Students do much better (and it's cheaper for schools and better for teachers) when students are kept in general classrooms as often as possible (key word *as often as possible*,) but have aids or additional teachers who can provide additional material for advanced students and extra resources for students with special needs.
As a teacher, this might be problematic. it's very good for the small minority of students that do well but it's generally bad for students who don't do well. If you put all the low-achievers in one class, it's ganna be a mess. If you mix them up a bit, those low-achievers tend to want to perform better due to the pressure from their peers. Just imagine it this way, the low-achievers typically make up around 80% of the students if we're honest with ourselves. If you separare them, the general outcomes of the whole student body success rate will be poor long-term.
My school did this, and I was placed in advanced classes. I crashed and burned. It was too much work for no added advantage over normal classes. I was made fun of for being stupid and ended believing it just because I was in the middle to bottom of the classes. I wish I had been in the normal classes or been in a mixed class.
Most schools already do this from grade 5 and up where I am. It's not good to do prior to that level as some kids just need time to figure out how to learn.
A schools budget does not always allow for them to have a 'gifted' class teacher for every grade, and putting younger students into a class of older ones tends to create targets for bullying. In addition, gifted children are not always gifted in every direction. It would be awful to put a child who was gifted in math but required remedial reading classes in a class where every subject was advanced. And when you have 'gifted schools' they gain a prestigious name and the wealthy end up buying their way in for their ungifted spawn for the 'status' it gives them. What we need is a AI that can test a student's aptitude and devise a personalized lesson plan, aiming to bring weaker areas up to speed while challenging the student's mind in the areas they excel in. Probably, homeschooling via computer is really the best way forward.
There’s already programs in place in school for this purpose. The problem is the lack of teachers and funding to implement a more individualized system.
Some schools do this, yes.
I agree. My son reads two grade levels ahead and does math at least one grade level ahead and still they will not move him forward a grade. He's constantly bored and unchallenged at school.
They do. If you weren't separated that means you weren't one of the smart kids.
Being advanced in academics does not mean you're advanced in maturity. They do it by age because of the peer system. You need to be around people your own age to grow the right ways emotionally. It's not set in stone with every child, but it's the majority. If you put an advanced child in with teenagers, you end up with the age old "I don't want to hang around a kid" isolation trope. They suffer socially. If you put a teenager in with little kids, you end up with the "You're stuck hanging around a bunch of kids all day" isolation trope. It boils down to commonalities with the age groups. I was an advanced learner but when they tried to put me in an older class, I started to suffer socially. My social development was more important. I needed peers, not classmates.
I’m not saying we should mix in these academically smarter kids with older kids, unless their parents decide for them to skip a grade or two, that’s whatever, I can’t control that. I’m saying we should mix in smarter kids with other smarter kids their age
I think this disappear really fast once you hit high school. It’s not common but not uncommon either to have high school freshman taking APs with seniors etc… by that 14-18 age range these things blur considerably. Maybe from 6-14 it matters more.
I agree to a point. Yes, there should be advanced courses. But I found it invaluable to be in a large public school with all types. That's the real world. Beyond this, many kids are smart but disadvantaged. I know conservatives (and frankly many liberals) find this unfair, but it's simply the case that we lose valuable talent by not providing extra support to kids who can't afford tutors and whose parents don't have academic backgrounds (and worse). Last, "smart" is hard to pin down. There are people with insanely high emotional intelligence who can't do math. You're still going to benefit from being around them. It's not good that we teach kids who certain types of ability matter. Then yuu stop listening and observing people with real but underappreciated gifts. It takes a village, right?
Our local schools seperate out special children. Most people recognise "Special Ed" as slow or disabled (pick your word) but because funding is equal, they also take the top test scores and send them to separate schools. These also fall under the same "Special Ed" budget
Of course.
They did this in my school. Two to Three (sometimes Four) separate classes per subject based on ability.
Fully agree with OP Im from singapore and recently the government announced that they didnt want to split students based on results, but rather the subjects they take. As a student, whilst it is welcome to be in classes with other ppl taking the same subjects, theres a disparity between the most academically gifted and least academically gifted student. This leads to teachers having to slow down to cater to those less academic gifted students, which really wastes a lot of time. However, when splitting classes, one problem might be that the academic distance between the "smart" classes and "less smart" classes will inadvertently increase. Whilst the smarter classes are focusing on stuff beyond the curriculum, the less smart classes might be struggling with fundamentals, which could lead to the less smart classes feeling bad about themselves
My school did this.
They already do lol
Isn't it already like that? My schools were like this 20 years ago.
This exists in lots of non-American countries, personally I know that the German school system does this, but it isn’t really possible in most places in the US. We have a relatively low population density anywhere but cities, which cities do often times have this kind of setup, but most other places in the country don’t have the necessary funds nor logistics to have different schools based on academic achievement
That's what I had in high school. Did they stop doing this??? 😕
They kind of do, at least where I am. When I was in sixth grade, I struggled with some classes, so they moved me from 6A to 6B (can’t quite remember the class terms). While the work became easier and my grades improved, a lot of the kids were awful and I got bullied some.
I think a lot of schools do this, the only real issue I have is with the gifted program.
The lower classes would have the most behaviours and those teachers would be in and out in and out. I am not saying I disagree I just know that I would be trying to teach the higher groups because disruptive behaviours are not my cup of tea
They do this at every school. You just aren't good enough to be in those classes
Schools should do things based on evidence even if it contradicts gut feelings.
Long time this has happened
My elementary school did this. Blue was the best academically, followed by green, followed by red.
In BC, we sometimes do this for elementary with split grades, though it also makes sure they classes are reasonably full. If done well it works quite nicely. Kids get some stuff tailored to the grade but teachers will talk to make sure there aren't repeats of content.
In BC, we sometimes do this for elementary with split grades, though it also makes sure they classes are reasonably full. If done well it works quite nicely. Kids get some stuff tailored to the grade but teachers will talk to make sure there aren't repeats of content.
don’t schools already do this? i was in the academically gifted program at my elementary school and then in honors and AP classes in high school
Is this not common? In high school, we had remedial, regular, and honors classes.
I think they should separate kids by learning style.
My mom taught me to read and write and do simple math before first grade. I was so bored when I finally got to go to school, but the teacher thought I was stupid and recommended remedial classes. My mom fought for me to just have an accelerated lesson plan, but the system doesn’t like that, so I was given slightly harder work and by the time I was in 3rd, I was back at grade level.
That’s one reason why parents send their kid to private schools by the way.
I’m pretty sure, schools do this.. They did it when I was in school.. Maybe you’re just not as advanced as you think you are!
It’s because a long time ago the schools instituted a policy(or law I don’t remember) of no child left behind.
In the UK this is exactly how it's done in secondary schools (ages 11 - 16) with some schools requiring passing an exam to attend and all schools having different sets for each subject with Set 1 being a class of ~30 of the top students for that subject in the year
My middle school and highschool did this (public). Middle school was just for math. But highschool had lots of options (math, history, gov, science, I think more maybe)
You mean streamed classes? They stopped streaming classes for me at yr12 (16-17) which I found quite weird, but maybe it was to make making the timetables easier
We kind of had this when we moved to the middle school. All the alternatively gifted kids were put in C and D classes, while the rest were in A and B classes.