If you can have Sports Academies for children outstanding at sports...

[futuristic1]

and nobody complains about that, why can't you have brainy academies for bright kids and have nobody complain about that?

My simplistic take on the grammar school issue - I would never get in a sports academy but I live with it.

Is it a 'British' cultural/anti-intellectual thing?

Most of the education system is aimed at helping the brain. Sports are an added extra that Round things out to provide something extra.

Humans were made to move around you know, as well as use their brains. Does anyone think that because someone is good at sport they are not brainy, because that couldn't be further from the truth.

Sports Academies that select based on sports are not state schools. State schools could be called a sports academy but yes, it just celebrates and funds sport. It doesnt change anything about the curriculum.

Some sports academies may be private, but there are also brainy schools that are private.

I think most of what you have written has been ridiculous assumptions from your topic header onwards, so far to numerous to list.

Regarding University Challenge, I assume you mean Mr Monkman who did have a rather strange manner, although now he also has a bit of a cult following. Other successful teams have members who, while very brainy, are also much more ordinary in manner and appearance. Conversely, a few years back there was an all girl team (can't remember which university) who did specularly badly and a lot was made of that in the media.

You probablay are reading the wrong press, but I do think the media do tend to portray the highly intelligent as lacking social skills, although it is the opposite of my personal experience where some the the most intelligent people I have met have also been extremely sociable.

Most academics and clever people Know love the outdoors, climbing, cycling, triathlon, marathon running. Outdoor pursuits.

I am confused as to why a brainy person shouldn't be encouraged into these from a young age? After all it's probably quite smart to look after your physical wellbeing and make the link between physical exercise and a healthy brain.

Can't have a clever kid in our local school. No point. Teachers aren't allowed to do anything about it. Not all the kids are entered into the 11+ which seems weird. If the Gov are so interested in social mobility, why not make them all do it? If you have a clever kid whose parents didn't do well at school so expect their child to go to the same school they went to which is close to where they live and where the rest of the kids in the family go, then you'll never know if they could have passed for the grammar school. Plus, they'll not necessarily do well at the comp because they haven't had that boost of academic confidence because no one bothered to let them.

I do think you're right about intellectualism not seen in a favourable light. In the playground and on facebook there are countless examples of kids doing well and winning awards at running, dancing, martial arts. At primary level, those achievements are often linked to natural and/or physical ability and not achieved through hours of commitment in the way that adults may approach sport. You don't see people talking about scores their kid got in class or the SATs in the same way. Those whose kids did above average may do, those who did really, really well know better than to mention it to anyone at all. The fact that those kids who did well academically may have done through the hours and hours they put in reading about different things apparently doesn't compare to those who spending hours running around a track. It just doesn't in real life. I don't know why.

Perhaps it is because for some of us, no matter how hard we tried we'd never win a sprint race because of the way we're built. But, perhaps we perceive that if we worked a bit harder at school or read more books that we could be that clever too and therefore it makes us feel resentful? It's easy to say, 'oh I can't run fast because of X, Y, Z' especially if those things are obvious to the naked eye. However, intelligence is less tangible, harder to define, not possible to actually see, therefore we have more difficulty in defending our own intelligence?

The test is easy.

If I told you my child was doing really well at ballet and recently got a distinction in her latest exam, how do you feel? What would you say to me?

Now, if I told you my child got full marks in her SATs, how do you feel? What do you say to me?

Which one, really, truthfully, are you judging me on?

Middleaged I wouldn't judge you or her on either. Genuinely. If I knew you I'd feel happy. If I didn't, I wouldn't care!

Of course there should be specialist schools for the brainiest kids. They are going to be curing diseases etc in the future and should be nurtured. Of course all kids should be but frankly it IS more important for a country that someone with the intellectual capacity to find a cure for cancer has a top notch education rather than whether the average kid does or not.

It's definitely more acceptable to boast about sporting success. Parents are more sensitive about their kid's intelligence because it is very important and not an optional extra. Everyone has to do GCSEs but if a kid sucks at football they can just avoid it for life.

I think what you have to realise is that even if we had specialist schools for all the academic subjects they wouldn't be suitable for all the clever children.
My dd is at a specialist music school, I know of dozens of equally talented children who couldn't cope in such an environment.
To study at the level that would provide results for the investment given to the education means that the subject is studied much more than others and sacrifices of other subjects have to be made, to fit it all into the day.
You couldn't have specialist schools in every town as no way could state afford to provide so many, so the children would need to board if they didn't live close enough and chip in with fees if they were deemed to be able to afford it.

I think you're right gillybeanz, and in most instances, private schools do the job for those that can afford it. Those that can't are told 'they'll be clever whichever school they go to'. A child excelling at sport at school has the option of sports clubs outside school. I am constantly amazed by the lack of science/maths/coding clubs for kids outside of school. I think it's because they are supposed to be tired after school of that sort of things whereas many kids go home and read/use internet to follow those pastimes only. Sadly, that's like a potential professional basketball player shooting hoops in the back garden as opposed to going to a club where they'll have access to good facilities and coaching.

I do think things are changing though. Seeing a lot more science fairs, etc cropping up. Perhaps Prof Cox influence? Perhaps Gov putting more cash into pushing STEM for girls? Perhaps it's just a social area thing and where we are there just isn't that stuff going on.

I think there should be these schools and often comment that the model of my dd school would work with individual academic subjects, take Maths as an example.
To compare to my dd education Maths would take 2/3 of the timetable with other subjects studied to the min requirement of Ofsted/ n.c stated hours of study and no more.
Extra clubs/ groups would exist throughout the day, . Extra curricular subjects would probably not exist and they would want to do maths above everything else, and live for it.
This is what it is like to receive a specialist subject education, you need to sacrifice so much, in many cases waving goodbye to your child and not seeing them for weeks.
I think you have to be careful what you ask for.

We are applying for DS to go to a sports academy. Only 30 children are selected on the basis of sports ability the rest of intake are just on usual criteria like siblings, distance etc. Not at all like a grammar school.

This. x1000

@MiddleagedManic

I would hope people would give you the same answer.

The combination of being clever AND working hard to achieve good grades is something to be celebrated.

As is just working hard and achieving the best grades you can.

It really does not matter if kids are not good at sport, it matters if kids do not do as well in education as they could.

Grammar school system means that kids who do not go to grammar school, do less well that comparable kids in comprehensives. That matters.

Nobody laughs at the marathon runner who collapsed towards the end

This one?

I laughed my arse off!

www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=4&v=X5WR-OBzkZg

Nobody really sniffs at academically able young people or adults.

The issue is deciding they're academically able or not at age 10.

Your sports academy would be a bit shit if it only ever selected kids on the basis of their sporting ability aged 10.

A good idea would be to send the sporty and non-sporty kids, the academic and non-academic kids to a school that recognises emerging sporting or academic talent if/when it appears aged 12, 13, 14 or 15 and hones it. Maybe we could call such schools, I don't know, comprehensives maybe? Radical I know.

For those of you saying you wouldn't judge me or my child for telling you how happy I was they'd done well at an academic test rather than a sporting/hobby achievement, then I am pleased. Sadly, you are probably in the minority or are in a good catchment area where it's normal for kids to excel.

Agree that 10 is ridiculously young to test kids. It is bonkers, but hard to change the schools to a different system as it would cost a lot and state schools seem to be lacking in cash at the moment as it is.

Looking at the most popular sport in the UK - soccer - my understanding is that many of the children likely to become professionals are selected long before they are 10.

I think it would be a 'shit' sports academy that didn't know stuff like that.

That's not to say there are no late starters but it would be a bit like being a mature student - you'll have a bit of catching up to do on your own.

Musical and maths prodigies are identified around four or five years of age.

It's a bit daft to think you won't have bored a lot of bright kids stupid if you insist on waiting until they're 12-15 years of age to challenge them.

I think part of the issue is that it's not the difference between grammar and average. Locally to us, until a new HT came in, it was the difference between grammar and absolutely dire. It's a huge issue for a parent if your averagely bright child misses out because they aren't bright enough for grammar and the alternative is truly dire.

There should be schools for the aptitude of every child and while there isn't there is going to be parents unhappy that other children have their needs met when theirs doesn't.

Now that the HT has turned around the local secondary there isn't any bad feeling toward the grammar. In fact, it's more the other way now as some of the parents from the grammar seem unhappy that some kids from the "comp" are matching their bright darlings and crib about the "extra money" that the comp got - I'm not sure how fixing the hole in the roof made the kids smarter, but still...

My point for the whole thread was simply why do people get so irate about elitism and the thought of their children being 'disadvantaged' academically - by the very idea of grammar schools even existing - but they don't care less about the eltism of sport, or acting or music etc etc etc.

In a nutshell, people are different and we all have to come to terms with that - Except when it comes to school.

Then it's NO, my kid can't possibly not be as bright as another kid - well maybe they can - maybe your kid's just not that bright.

Nor can they dance as well as another

Or sing as well

Or kick a ball or run as well.

So why aren't people up in arms about that?

I am a selective-school educated professional, with intelligent, high performing (academically) children, and I recognise NOTHING from your premise, OP.

I want my DC to do well academically. They want to do well academically, and they work at it.

They are at a comprehensive school, in top sets. This is a school in a pretty non-leafy area of S London. There are gangs on local estates, between our house and the school, for example. And the kids of those families are in the school. There is a high ratio of young people within the school who are on FSM. At no time has anyone ever had anything to say about children within the school who are high achievers. There is no bullying due to being a 'swot' or 'geek', these words are not used. The school has an orchestra way better than anything at my old school. The school supports (and rewards , and flaunts) its high achieving students. And makes opportunities for them. It also supports students with challenges, lower learning speeds, specific SENs, etc etc and pushes them to their best potential. That is what a comprehensive school is.

I want academic excellence for my kids, they want it for themselves, it is well catered or within their good comprehensive school.

Though I do think the 5 A*-C performance measure pressurises schools to support he middle to achieve this as a priority. BUT Grammars often coast: results reflect the ability of the selective intake, VA scores are no more than they should be.

VolunteerAsATribe: there is a proper study which demonstrates that Kent (as a fully selective county) does not achieve overall better results than comparable areas, but I can't remember who by. Here is a FT exploration of some data which suggests the same thing here

Holding a considered view is not 'whining'. That makes me laugh on a thread about supposed anti-intellectualism!

Having read many threads on MN, I would say that people who do not agree with grammar schools have usually thought about the political / ideological / equalities / philosophical angle as well as the pedagogical / educational pov and the finance and practicalities of delivering good education to the whole of our society.

You're supposing that a single test taken by 10 year old kids can accurately select for academic excellence. This is false.

The 11+ routinely puts kids into the wrong schools.

Besides, if you're talking about grammar schools selecting the top 25%, this will extend to kids who get B grades at GCSE. Hard to argue that they need a special education and can't simply be catered for in a comp.

Education is vitally important for the whole of society. It is as important to my circumstances that all young people are educated to reach their potential and contribute to a productive, thriving country. So I care that all have good education.

It is a matter of interest to me that some people achieve sporting excellence, but I'd that the main purpose of education?

Of course there should be specialist schools for the brainiest kids. They are going to be curing diseases etc in the future and should be nurtured. Of course all kids should be but frankly it IS more important for a country that someone with the intellectual capacity to find a cure for cancer has a top notch education rather than whether the average kid does or not.

I disagree - everyone needs to be nurtured and are as valuable. Who are brainiest people going to work with? - average people. Is it vital that the hospital cleaner understands science and the importance of keeping the ward clean for the vulnerable patients the brainy one is trying to cure? (Its different to understand about germs rather than just be told by the supervisor that it's important to clean properly.)

If the average children are not challenged what happens to the late developers? If averagely academic pupils are not taught well what happens when one of their DC turns out to be brilliant- are you sure they will encourage their DS/DD who is clever enough to find the cure for cancer?

"it IS more important for a country that someone with the intellectual capacity to find a cure for cancer has a top notch education rather than whether the average kid does or not."

That's so elitist. :(
And funny, too. As if cancer was one disease .

I tried to find admission criteria for a "sports academy". It's not clear to me that any state school sports academy allows in only the top % high ability sports kids.

The people on my FB feed who boast about their kids... are bragging about academics. The people with high sporting achiever offspring don't seem to say a word about it.