LeQueen I agree with your last point but given your seemingly fixed views about ability I wondered what you thought about Matthew Syed's comment:
"Environment overwhelms genetic variation due to the transformation that occurs at a neural level with hard work. Our brains are highly transformable."
I'd be interested to hear what others thought about his Q&A session too. He made some interesting points about those we imagine have innate talent including some sporting personalities, Tiger Woods, the Williams sisters etc.
I am struck that so many seem to think that ability is encoded in our genes, you are either 'bright' or 'slow' and this is set in stone and there isn't very much we can do to change it. Many believe our IQ is largely inherited and follows us between lessons and is as unchangeable as eye or hair colour. Cognitive science is showing that we can change our brains, 'cells that glow together, grow together'.
IMO children are often barcoded young, a very verbal & articulate reception or Y1 child will often be see as 'bright' and once these decisions have been made they are rarely rescinded. See discussion on 'talent is a myth' thread over on education if anyone is interested. Children can improve their performance incrementally, go into any good prep school with a class of less than 20 and watch. Children who are treated as if they are intelligent become so in this sense. I've seen children doing timed tests and assignments twice weekly from Y3, after a while they learn what vocab examiners like and can produce good writing routinely, just as we can navigate a car from London to Cornwall. If you've been in a large class at primary, perhaps with some behavioural problems etc you simply can't compare. Timed tests won't be routine, nor will vocab that examiners might admire and desire to see in your 11 plus paper. Most likely you won't have finished the syllabus by the time you take the 11 plus let alone spent years building up for it. If you get in a car and try to get to Cornwall when you've only driven 3 miles to your local shops previously you might come unstuck, however good a driver you may be. Perhaps not the best analogy but hopefully you get my drift. Many children spurt after the age of 11 too.
So why do we have such a fixed view about ability and intelligence? Guy Claxton has come up with some good ideas. Establishing ability is important as then we get the best return on our investment, educational resources are scarce. Claxton also talks about psychological reasons. It's human nature to want to find people predictable and stable so we ascribe a level of ability to them, even with limited evidence, we so underestimate how unpredictable people are. Lastly Claxton says teachers make assumptions about ability because their lives are busy and complex. Teachers may deal with 150 students a day, all with different issues etc, it's understandable they want to order the chaos. He says that teachers tend to find a lens to reduce all this chaos to 'salient' characteristic's. 'Jimmy's a plodder', 'Sarah's bright but easily upset', 'Anne's helpful but average' etc. IQ tests & quick assessments help teachers in this task and high status subjects like maths and english are seen as more important.
There's so much talk about children that have been hot-housed for the 11 plus struggling when they get to the Grammar school as they don't have the inherent ability. IMO this is sour grapes most of the time. What about the lazy 'clever' student who does nothing when he gets there and falls behind? And where's the evidence for all these strugglers at Grammar? The Grammars I know have sets to cater for all the intake anyway.
Someone earlier mentioned the huge amount of Grammar homework really sorting out the clever from the dim? Really, how does that work exactly?