hot house v's not so pushy!

[Will123]

just wondering what people's views are on the so called Surrey 'hot house' schools and not so 'hot house schools' i.e the ones that call themselves 'all rounders'? Has anyone moved their children from all round schools to the so called hot house schools?

I agree that an environment in which everyone is very clever isn't essential for bright children to thrive. They do need a small quorum of similarly abled children, but there's plenty of anecdotal evidence that some children do better in an environment where they are a bigger fish; partly I think if they are in a position when say learning a new concept and they 'get it' a little ahead of their peers and then explain it to them this is an extremely valuable way of consolidating their own learning which might well not happen in a faster paced setting.

This gifted stuff is nonsense. Call a child 'gifted' enough times and you'll have an unpleasant piece of work on your hands. "Child prodigies" almost never amount to anything as adults because they see intelligence as a finite thing that can't be expanded by hard work and determination - so when the work finally gets tricky for them (perhaps in university) they don't know how to put their nose to the grindstone, persevere and overcome the hurdle.

What matters is attention span, good teaching and inner drive.

Yes, but some children are just like that rather than made by the parents. There are bound to be some at scools like the ones I've been mentioning but most children in those schools aren't like that. Most people don't go on to their children about how high the child's IQ is. No sensible parent would do that and I don't have one of those children anyway, just reasonably bright ones.

However it does make sense for reasonably bright chilren to be educated with others rather than be held back by average IQ 100 ones etc. It seemed to work for us anyway.

A good academically selective school should enable it's bright pupils to become 'all rounders'.

In a mixed ability environment bright children may be tempted to rest on their academic 'laurels' and even label themselves as the class geek or nerd.

When all the children are reasonably bright then these (often naturally competitive) children will strive to shine in sport, art, drama or music.

Obviously, some bright children will be happier in a mixed ability schools (especially those who are more sensitive or lack confidence).

I'm London, rather than Surrey: so perhaps even more "pressured". But what I don't think has been mentioned in the thread yet is the relative "brightness" of the children.

The very academic schools are aiming for top 5% (however they measure it); a well known school near here known for being sporty not swotty is still taking roughly top 15%.

The difference is not great. An academically bright child will do well in either place.

betelguese, have you been for a university interview lately? I have not found them to be asking IQ-style tests at all. Not once in the half dozen interviews I have had something to do with.

IQ is measurable but the measurement is not worth very much. As I've said before elsewhere, my own IQ was tested twice in school and came up with very different results completely influenced by my attitude to academic at the time of the tests.

Children who consider themselves bright tend to fizzle out because they have a fixed mindset about what they can achieve. Those who attribute their success to hard work are the ones who go on to do great things. See the work of Carol Dweck.

It's why some places like to interview you or give you general essays you cannot prepare for but which can show natural brilliance.

I agree that some very pushed children don't do well later but the very naturally bright ones do stand out at university entrance, I'm sure. I don't mean children who have been told they are brilliant when they aren't that good. I'm sure it's a rare parent of a very bright child who goes on and on to that child about how clever they are.

Obviously universities want bright people who are passionate about the subject

Many seem to have very linear, fixed ideas about IQ. Intelligence isn't unitary, it is the sum total of all habits of mind - the relevant habits are many and various and most can be cultivated.

The core of the traditional model of intelligence has been rationality. Though your brightness affected many things you did, it manifested most importantly in conscious, explicit, deliberate, logical thinking. Your performance at solving abstract logical puzzles, especially if you could do it under pressure and fast was a good indicator of how much 'intelligence' you had. These tests could then be used as a reliable dipstick to see how deep the sump of someone's general purpose ability was. People differ in the amount of 'intelligence' they had and it was important to know this about them.

Gooftroop mentions Dweck and she Guy Claxton etc have written about this and challenged some long held views. This said I don't dispute that everyone can become an academic or mathematician etc.

Claxton also says that calling some students 'gifted and talented' is fine if you mean their current levels of performance in a certain area surpass those of their peers and they should be encouraged to continue. However, if we use it to mean 'possess inherent, all round, high ability' then it should be rooted out.

As Goof says here & Claxton has written bright students may struggle less often but when they do they are likely to feel even more stupid then their 'less able' peers. They come to associate their brightness with easy success and if they find themselves struggling with a concept this feels to them like evidence that they are not really as bright as they are supposed to be. They are not living up to their billing. Any ability label, if you believe it to be fixed and valid means commitment is weakened in the face of difficulty. Women are apparently especially vulnerable to this and it can lead to 'imposter syndrome' (a belief that you are not really as bright as you are thought to be and you risk being unmasked at any time).

Oh goodness me. It's what works for the child and the family. We have two dc. One is very clever, probably g&t but never tested. Strolled into one of the most selective indy day schools in the country without a tutor and from a state primary at 9. Has rarely since lifted a digit but skims the bottom of the top third. The other is a far more gentle soul and is working very hard and has risen to the top at a very very gentle school. It has done wonders for her confidence and self esteem. DS would have been miserable at dd's school, dd would have scraped into the equivalent of ds's with a tutor and would have been miserable there.

And btw - we would love DS to do 6th form at Eton but he has refused outright.

Horses for courses.

An IQ can be estimated actually from a US SAT or ACT test and the age of pupil at the time, these tests are taken by many UK pupils and are so considered by our universities.

What?!

First off, SAT and ACT scores can be HUGELY improved by practice and/or coaching - same as IQ scores.

Second, I'd estimate that about one tenth of one percent of UK university applicants have even heard of those American exams let alone taken them.

Xenia, I'm not saying the parents label their children as amazing brilliant (although lots do), but if they are having their IQs tested and then telling them theirs is in the top one or two per cent and enrolling them in gifted and talented programmes etc etc then that is the message that the kids are getting.

Cortina, agree - intelligence is a combination of so many factors, not just scoring well on logic tests.

onceamai, yes, we're kind of straying off the point aren't we ... Jerking back to reality, yes, lots of bright children are very happy in very academic, competitive schools. But some aren't and they'll do just as well, probably better, in a more mixed ability school, so long as there's some setting. I would not advocate putting an academically ambitious (I prefer that term to saying very intelligent) child in a generally low achieving school - obviously.

I went to one of the more academically selective and highly regarded Surrey schools. There was still a huge emphasis on extra-curricular non-academic subjects, so we were certainly expected to be all rounders rather than just A graders.

Although I was one of the most able, I found the atmosphere oppressive. Pretty much from the first term of my first year there, the screws were being firmly tightened. I always felt that I was never up to scratch (constantly being told I wasn't putting in enough "effort" even if I came top), but at the same time I was frustrated because I never felt sufficiently intellectually challenged. For example they chose an easier science syllabus to guarantee everyone got an "A", ignoring those of us who were desperate to learn more and deeper.

It isn't what I'd choose for my own children. Wherever they end up, I hope they get a lot more enjoyment from their formal education than I did.

I don';t think par.ents who have children's IQs tested or schools who test them tend to tell the children the results.

Cortina, private schools don't use gifted and talented labels. It's just a fiction of the last labour Government imposed on state schools who had to find that even in a school with almost all children at sub normal or even just 110 IQ level they had to determine that X% were G&T. Thankfully the private sector doesn't go in for that except I suppose in that children who get into a school which is hard to get into know they managed it and any group of children is usualy pretty good at working out who is clever and who is not whatever the school does about keeping individual results confidential.

I never felt my older children talk of screws tightened and I think it depends on the child and the school. Many private schools teach beyond the syllabus. Education is not just about passing exams. I want them to enjoy learning. The exam results are just an incidental result.

I just don't like good schools being labelled hot houses when my experience of them is that they aren't. They can be fairly relaxed places for many children.

Agree 'hothouse' is a pejorative term, and it's become a (pretty meaningless) shorthand. No real life school fits the description of 'hothouse' but people throw the term about as if such schools exist.

You do have to beware, especially in the present climate where many independent schools are getting twitchy about uni applications. Our daughter,17, is at one of the famous schools above and I believe the workload/ pressure is approaching untenable. Two of her friends have already left because of it and another wants out. Nothing ever appears good enough and girls' confidence is being eroded. And these are bright strong girls used to 5 years boarding at a very academic school. I'm beginning to think choosing 'middle of the road' may be best.

It is also worth knowing of schools that are addressing this debate. Check out Bloo House, a small independent school in Esher, Surrey. Their philosophy and innovative multiple intelligence curriculum are worth knowing about. See their website on: www.bloohouse.co.uk