Yeah, it’s interesting in that people say the value education and so on, but we put tons and tons of money into sports programs and paying athletes and so on, and not as much into academic pursuits… and I love sports and I’m a big backer of youth sports, but we don’t glorify scientists like we do athletes.
6 Likes
Have any high school teachers or administrators chimed in on this thread? I would be delighted to hear about their experiences. It seems to me that they might have a broader or at least a more interesting view than individual parents or those of us who are reaching back to our foggy memories of being high school students decades ago. What is the experience like teaching college prep Ninth grade English vs. Honors Ninth grade English or whatever?
For that matter, I’d be interested in hearing the perspectives of middle school teachers in systems that rely on middle school teacher recommendations to decide high school placement for entering freshmen in English, History or other humanities classes. Note that I’ve left math out since it is my understanding that the article was about humanities courses. I don’t have a WSJ subscription so I have not actually read it.
2 Likes
If most “high achievers” went into fields that address those issues (and I 100% agree that these deserve the attention of our best & brightest) that would be great. As it is, most high achievers want to go into IB or work at MBB - they want to monetize their intellect. Many fewer appear to be interested in solving intransigent problems like climate change.
Although over-represented on this forum, a tiny percentage of students work in IB or MBB. Surely less than 1/2 of 1 percent.
2 Likes
Even focusing on the “gifted” kids is not so easy. One of my favorite halloween costumes was that of a former gifted child… they just wore jeans and a plain white t-shirt. Whenever anyone asked them what they were, the responded with “I was supposed to be lots of things”.
There’s a danger of grouping smart kids together and telling them that they are there because they were smart. There have been a couple of studies on this where if you praise a kid for being smart, particularly when they are young, they become more risk averse, whereas if you praise a kid for working hard, they take more chances. This has anecdotally been my experience growing up. My kids’ schools have been preaching growth mindset and such trying to take that into account, but they still did testing and sorted kids into gifted programs in the 3rd grade.
Ideally, you want kids to have to work on things and learn to fail and be ok with failure. So, from an individual perspective, kids should routinely be put into situations where the material might be difficult and they fail occasionally, but then learn how to overcome those failures. I don’t know how to achieve that for everyone… so, how do you create that for most people, and then provide supplements for those that fall outside the range?
I also think we track people too young and don’t re-evaluate often enough.
3 Likes
But is having two levels of English in 9th and 10th really the crucial battle for those kids?
I agree with you that the 99th percentile kids need differentiation but I think that’s typically separate from the structure of frosh/soph English being discussed here. At least in our district, those kids are receiving a layer of enrichment/instruction/pathways that’s developed independently of the structure that is there to serve the middle 95%.
My kids were in that group and really the difference between 2 sections of English and one wasn’t nearly as meaningful for them as other factors in their education.
I looked at the Culver City HS academic catalog. It’s very robust in terms of honors and AP across all subjects, including pathways that culminate in Calc BC and can include AP social studies starting in 10th. It’s only in English that there’s one level in 9th and 10th, not the whole curriculum.
Presumably with that scaffolding in place across all subjects there are opportunities for very advanced kids to accelerate in some subjects as appropriate (I doubt waiting until senior year for BC will work for the advanced math kids, but I assume the school adapts as needed).
I also wouldn’t assume that the kids identified as gifted/advanced learners aren’t getting appropriate individualized plans not visible on the catalog. That’s how it worked in our district; it just wasn’t advertised (for good reason).
2 Likes
Curious what this means? Are 9th graders really being “left behind” if they have to take 9th grade English with the same kids from their 8th grade English class? For that matter, are supposed math superstars really being “left behind” if they aren’t provided a 9th grade class on differential equations at their public high school? Are supposed humanities/social studies superstars left behind if they aren’t offered 9th grade seminars on Proust’s In Search of Lost Time, or Foucault’s views on prisons, or on Rawls theory of justice, or classes focusing solely on the Boer Wars?
Likewise for those who believe that high schools need to allow each student to maximize their potential, whatever that may be . . . At what point, if any, does the child’s pursuit of their passion become EXTRAcurricular?
Also, is the failure to provide supposed “superstar” students with a course on differential equations (or any of the above examples) really comparable with the failure to provide other students with a solid educational foundation on which to build?
1 Like
I definitely agree.
Somehow, despite the flaws in the US education system, we are perceived to be the world leader in scientific research. Many other countries produce the same quality of work, but are mostly smaller, so size might be why the US retains its science “superpower” status. The EU as a whole is probably equivalent (I have no idea about numbers so that’s just a hunch). People from all around the globe seek to do their scientific training in the US.
As I have progressed in my career as a scientist, I have been surprised (truly) to discover that the best scientists come from all backgrounds. The correlation between excellent science and high school achievement, or even undergrad achievement, is lower than I would have expected. There are many fantastic scientists that had low GPAs and many high GPA scientists aren’t particularly good at their jobs (despite how it might appear on paper). The skills and qualities necessary to be a good scientist do not always overlap with stereotypes. My first-hand experience has soured me on using GPA and test scores as a proxy for scientific potential. One thing I strongly value is getting the not-so-obvious folks into careers science if it will be a good fit for them. Creative and critical thinkers with different perspectives are huge assets.
3 Likes
That was someone else’s words, not mine.
I think that’s why “leave behind” was in quotes, to stress the belief that putting kids in those situations is not really leaving them behind. The point being that resources should skew towards the average than the “super stars”
2 Likes
I am so glad you said this. I’m not sure I’ve ever seen any evidence that having kids race through an ever more advanced math and science curriculum from a young age is as effective as some seem to believe, especially if other less measurable skills and less represented perspectives are excluded.
1 Like
My instinct is that this might be related to another point made above:
Doing science (or engineering, or many other things) often means failing a whole lot, over and over. Trying things, taking risks and failing. And unfortunately, taking risks and failing might not come naturally for a high GPA, fast-track person who has a history of success and being labeled as “smart” compared to other people.
2 Likes
Finally something we can agree upon! 
Though I think there might be others.
I wanted to piggy back on this… because life is (hopefully) long. Over time, it’s not going to make a large difference if you don’t get to differential equations until you are 20 or 21 instead of 19.
When I was in high school, I was pretty good at math and I had gone through Calc 3 and Linear Algebra. But I went to one of those math/science academies, and I met some kids that were much, much better at math. Early in high school I thought I wanted to be an astrophysicist. But after meeting those really smart kids, I figured that I wouldn’t be smart enough to make the great discoveries, so I switched to humanities and went to Georgetown for international politics. And I loved that as well… but then 10 years later I went back and got a master’s in engineering… and now at 47, I’m considering learning something completely new.
There’s lots and lots of time, and looking back it was silly to think I couldn’t have had a wonderful career as a physicist just because I wasn’t doing an independent study on chaos theory at 16. Heck, I probably could still have a pretty good career if I went back and got a physics degree now.
I think the danger though is not making sure kids get through X amount of coursework before they graduate high school… it’s making sure they are engaged and appropriately challenged to encourage a love for their subjects and make them life long learners. And every kid has different needs to foster that… figuring out how to meet all those needs is challenging, hence this discussion.
3 Likes
Is it an appropriate time to note much of the US “superstar” science programs rest upon the largely international students enrolled in them?
9 Likes
2 Likes
I guess we all know someone from high school or college that went on to excell. My favorite was a guy we called “Big Bonging Bob” who really loved him some weed. I’m not sure if Bob is still bonging, but I do know he is a neurosurgeon practicing in NYC. But students like Bob are the exception. As a parent I wanted to maximize my kids opportunities by encouraging them to do good in k-8 then high school, and then college. Because, in general, they are connected.
So, when it came to high school, my goal was to make sure our kids received challenging academics that would prepare them for college. My natural inclination was to take the private HS path as police visits to our local HS seemed a little high. My kids however, wanted to try the public so we met with the counselor. She assured me that their schedules could be filled with honors classes that were academically more challenging, that the honors classes did not have issues with in-class discipline, and honors (and AP) classes were weighted higher for the weighted gpa ( important for college applications). So we took the public high school path with honors only classes and it worked well.
However, had we not had the option for honors classes, I would have gone down the private HS path as the private HS environment would not (IMO) have been as disruptive as our local public HS, giving our kids more chances to learn.
So for me the honors classes had nothing to do with accelerating classes, but rather just offering a stable environment to learn. Fortunately, we had the means to choose private schools if we needed to. I hope that more laws are passed so that educational funds move with the student so everyone has that choice.
8 Likes
This is SO true. You have indeed hit on one of the most vital skills for a good scientist. My spouse didn’t fail at anything in HS and college was a rude and destabilizing awakening. They didn’t recover until ~35 after many intensive years of hard work on mental health. We have parented our children very intentionally to experience failure, and to accept it as a natural part of life and to use it as a tool. We make sure that our kid with high academic achievements finds ways to experience and accept failures. I see that as an essential life skill, but it is paramount for a scientist/engineer.
I was once mentoring a superstar Rhodes finalist in her MS (she later went to med school at Stanford). She was a total disaster in the lab because science doesn’t work the way that she expected. My main goal for her was to teach her to embrace failure (and nuance and messiness and telling the truth). Those were the skills that were holding her back. Not the fact that she had attended middling universities despite her stellar achievements. We started cheering for her every time she broke down in tears in the lab – we celebrated her failures. I’m happy to say that she learned and laughed and is a better physician because of it.
Now, one might say that high-achieving kids need ultra advanced classes to challenge themselves to get to the point of failure. But I think there are ways to inculcate that appreciation otherwise.
You are a good scientist because you are quickly anticipating legitimate responses to your hypotheses that you are not keen on addressing, and instead pre-empting them by waving your hand — ‘these are not your droids’. 
2 Likes
Unfortunately not everyone has you as a mentor.
BTW are you available? My DS would benefit greatly under your methods. (Don’t expect an answer - just emphasizing.)