To think it's a nonsense to say you can tutor a child beyond their ability?

[Cortina]

First off I am unusual in that I believe it's possible to get smarter through practice, recent developments in cognitive science have proved this. I also believe seemingly effortless expertise and talent is often hidden practice.

Recently a few I know did well in the 11 plus and gained a place at a grammar school, several also gained places at selective independent schools after exam success. I've overheard gossip that many of this group were 'tutored beyond their ability' and are certain to struggle going forward. This is the sort of sentiment I've also witnessed on Mumsnet.

My view is that intellect can grow 'cells that glow together grow together' and anyway this group have fairly won a place. So why this attitude? Is it sour grapes? For those that believe intelligence fairly static & 'you can't get out what God didn't put in', Grammar and independent schools have sets and stream do they not?

Another thing, as a society we value 'innate ability' and genetically bestowed genius, but should we not value industriousness equally? A 'clever' but lazy child that wastes their time at a selective school is surely less deserving of a place than a 'less clever' hard working one? Should we not also test for suitable disposition?

Thanks, Rosemary. Your school sounds unusual and interesting. Rosemary you might enjoy the webchat with Matthew Syed here on Mumsnet, he wrote the book 'Bounce' and I believe is currently exploring some of these views & ideas about ability.

My concern about the "tutored beyond their ability" group is the fact they've been tutored at all.
You mention industriousness and hard work: don't you actually mean "ability to pay"?
I think it's wrong that some children are given the unfair advantage bought by their parents and that children with greater natural ability, whose parents can't afford additional tutoring, lose out.

I think that is what people mean when they say that a child has been tutored beyond their ability. I agree it's a clumsy phrase, but the issue remains: why should a child gain a school place or a team position simply because his or her parents are financially better off?

I think there are other reasons why children may seem to be late developers. I did badly at school from the age of about ten to fourteen. I was a daydreamer, didn't do any work; today I probably would have been diagnosed add. I sat the selective high school test because a friend was doing it, even though my primary school teachers told my mother it was a waste of time. I got in ( no one was tutored in those days) and continued doing badly for a few years. It was still the best place for me, I think, because there were other daydreamy, bookish girls, so I fitted in. Then, at about 15, I suddenly snapped out of my dream (which I've since read is common for kids like me). I loved senior subjects, the atmosphere, and I was winning prizes at the end.

A lot of children don't mind being at the bottom of a selective school. If anything it gives them a false sense of security. I had friends low down in the year who still thought the would get good results in the hsc, because they presumed they would be at the top of an ordinary school. They were wrong.

I've read Bounce, and find the "myth" to be persuasive.

It seems anyone (absent disability) can be "talented" (ie very, very good) at more or less anything. No, perhaps not us now, because of the passage of time - but if you can put in the 10,000 hours (and the younger the better), then you'll get there, be ahead of the "field", get more opportunities etc etc etc. Chances are, someone will only do this in something they love doing.

So I suppose I have also to agree with Tanith - all children are equally un/talented, but some have more exposure to certain activities than others - and "academic" subjects are just as subject to improvement by practice as others. Paid academic tutoring is only one aspect of this - any regular, purposeful exposure to an activity will have much the same effect. So the child with parents who read to and converse with their children will be doing the same (unconsciously, I suppose) and giving purposeful practice in the uses of English. At some point, practice gives way to achievement and growing skill; so yes, some children do better than others in some fields. But this is produced by much more than a few hours of tutoring.

This all begs the interesting question of unlocking motivation. Innate, imposed or a mixture? Knuckling down to a tutor, doing an extra "daily 10", reading up on something seen on telly etc all require co-operation or ability to concentrate and follow own interests. Practising musical instruments, or sticking with focussed sports coaching both require (imposed or self-) discipline to put in those hours -when excellence or delight in performance may still be distant. I vaguely recall a psych experiment on children about deferred gratification (can a toddler hold off eating a sweetie on the strength of a promise of two if they wait 10 minutes) - those that could were shown to be generally higher achievers in later life. Could this be about motivation? The ability to put in the time/effort in anticipation of bigger payoff?

Edith Weston agree that some households have greater cultural capital and this will benefit the child.Gradually general knowledge will grow if families stimulate the child by interesting discussion etc. I once took a group of year one children on a bus around London, the class teacher was with us. We passed Hamleys and a five year boy piped up with 'Ah Hamleys, I really wouldn't recommend the teashop there, we had an altogether unpleasant experience'. It made me smile but the teacher whispered his language clearly showed him to be a genius. Perhaps, but I knew the family well who have always treated their son and his older siblings as adults.

Edith agree an interesting question re: unlocking motivation. I think early on children have a headstart if they see it modeled, parents who are passionate about their hobbies, are industrious themselves and insist children complete homework set. In time perhaps this evolves into virtuous circle territory? A child has put in the hours with their reading or music practice and they get better than their peers and so want to do even better?

Agree that being smart is as much to do with self-discipline & determination as it is intellect. As you say this is a much greater predictor of future academic & general success as IQ. I think selective schools should consider & attempt to test for this much as they do for academics.

Tanith what do you mean by 'natural ability'? I think many see it as set out by the Spens report in 1938 which was the view behind the 11 plus:

Intellectual development during childhood appears..as if governed by a single central factor usually known as 'general intelligence'..it is possible at a very early age to predict with accuracy the ultimate level of a child's intellectual powers. It is accordingly evident that different types of children require types of education varying in important respects'.

Agree about the unfairness you mention but certain children will sadly always have an advantage. It's clear to me that many are still stuck in 1938 sadly.