Why don't we attach higher status to drive and tenacity in schools?

[Cortina]

Why don't we attach higher status to drive and tenacity in our schools? This is one of the questions that I've sent in for Matthew Syed on the secondary thread and will be very interested in his answer, if he chooses it to answer (there are quite a few)! :) I am posting here as I thought it would be interesting to see what others think.

A 'lazy', 'bright' child that wins a place at a selective school may not gain as much from the experience over time as an industrious but less 'bright' child.
I am always curious why this isn't considered in part when children sit the 11 plus. I don't think it is? I've found that an industrious, slow starter can morph into a knowledge-hungry, reasonably capable, late developer.

The child with a good work ethic, as suggested above, can beat the innately clever in exams. There have been studies that prove this I believe.

Yet we talk disparagingly about 'plodders' and most would choose to be a 'hare' rather than a 'tortoise'. If teachers etc talk about a child that 'tries hard' this is usually code for 'not terribly bright'. Perhaps you think we do attach status to children that 'try hard'?

This interests me, too. One of the things that puzzles me is the number of children who flit from one after-school activity (for example) to another without ever putting in sufficient effort to see a return. It seems that every week my DDs come home from something with the news that x is 'quitting' this or that, having never really given it a go. I think this is in part due to parents trying to give children a taste of everything, which is by no means a bad thing, but it must be frustrating, especially for leaders of musical, dance or sporting activities where a bit of practice and effort makes a significant difference.

In terms of business, I think as a country we need a number of very bright people to be the strategic thinkers of tomorrow - to shape our organisations and services appropriately for the future. Clearly we need an education system that delivers this (preferably a fair one that does not see all of these people provided by private schools, but that's another argument!).

These strategic thinking roles are few and far between, but arguably all jobs could be done better by people with persistence, drive and staying power than by those without, and yet these are not attributes that are always rewarded at school or at home.

I blame X Factor and Britain's Got Talent for letting people think there are short cuts to the top!

You mentioned children quitting activities and flitting between various different pursuits without mastering any. I read this advice for parents to give their children somewhere:

You don't know until you try
You still don't know if you didn't finish
You can complete this project/school assignment/sport season any normal child can and you are a normal child
You learn nothing if I (Mum/Dad/significant adult) do it for you
Come and ask for help if you really need it - otherwise you're doing fine
Quitting in the middle is not an option - this doesn't negate changing directions but too many directional changes constitutes quitting
Manners - this is still important - please, thank you, you are welcome and not rushing into the lift or train before all the occupants have exited

This is one of things that irritates me; I taught one girl at a private school who was not bright, but she worked. I wanted to award her the subject prize for the year, but wasn't allowed to. I did say to the Head that although she wouldn't win glittering prizes academically she should be rewarded for trying and his response was dismissive. I also pointed out that her parent's money was the same colour as that of the girl he wanted it awarded to (and she didn't get it as I vetoed that), and so she should have an equal opportunity to get the prize.

We need to look at how we measure success; for my son it will be in terms of A* and As as he that type of child. For my db's youngest and my dbil's youngest it will be about passing with a C or above and about trying hard to achieve that. For many I taught in the state system it will getting an E at GCSE and that needs celebrating just as much if that is the peak attainment for that child.

I'm really surprised that there is a sense that drive and tenacity aren't lauded. At our school (which does have a large number of high achievers), there is a real consciousness that the lower achievers shouldn't be disaffected and that their success is celebrated just as much.

My DC's are all different though not vastly and as each one heads into GCSE's I just say I don't care about *'s in themselves; I do care that they do the best that they can simply to secure the most interesting life open to them. I would never measure success in terms of raw grades.

Yellowstone it's the low status factor that particularly interests me as I describe in OP.

As I say a 'trier' and a 'hard worker' is often short hand for a student who isn't so 'bright'. As a society we seem to value and ascribe high value to those who are innately clever. I believe it's possible for pupils to get smarter through a growth mindset and hard work; cognitive science is moving forward all the time and some even believe IQ can increase as neural pathways become more defined and myelin increases.

Scaryteacher talks about a girl who was 'not bright but she worked' this is exactly what I refer to in my OP. Don't mean to single you out Scaryteacher, but views like this are interesting. She's a plodder rather than a brilliant being, a tortoise rather than a hare, a dreary 'tug boat that could' or whatever the dull, unvarnished boat thing is in the story that does rather well in the end through trustiness and graft.

What if she was bright, or through hard work became bright - another way of looking at a late-developer? I could have been the student you were describing Yellowstone. Bottom set material but suddenly I beat all the top set in the exam? How did that happen? No one respected the result or the hard work put in. The 'bright' pupils had been decided very early on, it's human nature to label after all, excuses & reasons were found for their failure and my success.

This puzzles me too...I often see threads on here where students who have been working their arses off to get into grammar school for example are dismissed. Apparently they will fail and the places shou;d be given to the brightest.

Why?

If a child is bright enough and is prepared to work hard, why is that less of an achievement?

I would also say that in real life (as opposed to the la la land of education) hard work and achievemnet is lauded above intellect. When I was a lawyer I saw the grafters, the creative thinkers, the ones with oodles of chutzpah, all outperforming their supposedly highly intelligent peers.

Similarly now I'm a writer I see many others with more raw talent than I...yet they remain unpublished, most often because they have no tenacity.

I'm squarely with Malcom Gladwell on this one...being bright isn't nearly as important as we think it is.

At my dd's grammar school we get "commendation" cards home when effort marks are high, not achievement marks.

Wordfactory I couldn't agree more, you put it very well. The best writers and most creative people I know are sadly usually not out of bed by noon. :)

One of the most brilliant men I know was summed up by his mother 'as a porsche with half a gallon of petrol' :).

Cortina I completely agree.

From a logical perspective, working hard is far more worthy of praise than innate brightness. Innate brightness is, to a large extent, genetic and/or down to early years upbringing - not something that the person has control over. Hard work on the other hand is something that the person can control, at least to a far greater extent.

At school, I was seen as doing well because I had high marks - even though I wasn't working very hard, and certainly wasn't pushing myself with extra curricular activities etc. I have poor self discipline and am bad about getting on with things that I find difficult or boring; if hard work and drive had been praised more I think this could have been different.

I also agree with wordfactory about what's important in post school life. Being bright is useful but it won't get you far without an ability to work.

Thinking about it, the same applies to looks. As a society we admire those who are "naturally pretty" more than those who aren't but have made themselves look good through presentation. But logically, it should really be the latter who get praise - they have demonstrated a skill.

Someone has posted a podcast with Matthew Syed over on the secondary education board. Worth a listen for sure. I hadn't realised he left school with minimal O'levels and went on to get a prize winning first from Oxford. Curiously he says he saw no difference between this buddies from state school and guys at Oxbridge, with tenacity, engagement passion and dedication he believes they could have been there too.

Drive and tenacity (although praiseworthy) is very difficult to quantify, and would differ for chidlren of different abilities and ages.

We absolutely do prize those qualities at our school. They are the children who win our subject awards every term. Drive and tenacity is to be found (and is rewarded) across the ability range here.

It doesn't need to be quantified. Lord knows we quantify enough in education. A teacher can recognise those qualities in a child and reward accordingly.

I agree totally Annie but Cortina's post implies that there should be a measure of tenacity or industriousness taken into account for the 11+:

......'A 'lazy', 'bright' child that wins a place at a selective school may not gain as much from the experience over time as an industrious but less 'bright' child.
I am always curious why this isn't considered in part when children sit the 11 plus. I don't think it is? I've found that an industrious, slow starter can morph into a knowledge-hungry, reasonably capable, late developer.'

I have no idea how that could be measured.

Ah, well, I'm not a selective school supporter, so I have no real position on that. I would have thought though, that as selection is by exam result, a coaster who scores higher in the 11/13+ would probably continue to do so in subsequent exams and therefore "deserve" the place?

Sounds good on the face of it, but how do you tell which child deserves to be commended? How do you tell if a child who succeeds has been working less hard?

I looked as if I was working less hard at school but that was simply because I had been driving myself since before I started school and spent hours reading in the evenings, so I was already far ahead by the time any subject came to be taught at school. Should I have been penalised and missed my place at grammar school (if that had been an option where I was) because the teachers didn't see me trying?

Dd is another one of those children who look as if she doesn't try and starts reading for exams very late (and misses a lot of school for health reasons), but the reason she can get away with it is because she spends far more time reading generally than her friends. Is her reading not a sign of a good work ethic simply because she doesn't wait to be told by the teacher what to read?

It's a bit like somebody who has been spending a lot of time practising the violin; they can play a new piece and make it look effortless.

As a university teacher, my experience is that the students who succeed are neither the lazy geniuses or the obedient plodders, but the self-motivators, the ones that take the initiative.

Genius is nine tenths practice you know? :)

I do agree we need to value tenacity as well as achievement but perhaps these days we test kids so often the only thing we judge them on is exam marks?

I'm not in the least convinced that there can be a separation between 'creative thinkers' and their 'highly intelligent peers'. There's too much attempted pigeon holing going on on this thread. Plenty of very bright people are absurdly hard working too. Far too much complexity out there to make these generalisations. DD2's last term's university report praises her 'raw intellect' while describing her essays for tutorials as displaying ' the loose ends of a creative mind'. It's not hard graft dimwit v lazy sod clever brat, life's far more colourful than that.

That having been said, youngsters who put in real effort should have that recognised, always, of course.

University report?

The first secondary school I worked at had tenancity as one of the thee words in their school motto. A prize was awarded for tenancity by form teacher's every year.

Yes Annie she gets the report obviously because she's over 18 but she told me what it said because as someone not hugely sure of herself I think she was surprised at the praise. I told her to believe it and to believe that the tutors meant what they said.

Cory, Matthew speaks on the podcast I mentioned about 'talent' being mistaken for expertise in an area. Often this has come about because of the hidden practice you mention rather than 'God given',endowed gift.

Annie, I can see the logic in what you say and I imagine that's how schools see things. What's interesting is how well regarded generally these 'bright' 'by the seat of your pants' pupils you mention are. A 'less bright' student who as also passed the exam, but it deemed to be 'over tutored' is generally seen as being less deserving of a place. The view is usually they will be 'out of their depth' and 'likely to struggle' going forward. Studies would show that it's perfectly possible for the 'less bright' student to out perform the coaster. The danger is that the 'less bright' believes he lacks the ability because he is receiving this negative message and this means he/she perhaps goes on to do less well in school and later in the wider world.