Middle class access to grammars via tutorproof 11+ part 2

[boschy]

May I do this? only there were some contrasting views at the end of the last thread which I found interesting.

One was mine (sorry!): "I think fear actually drives a lot of those parents who are desperate to get their child into GS, so they can be 'protected' from these gangs of feral teenagers who apparently run rampage through every non-selective school in the country.

Because clearly if you are not 11+ material you are a knuckle-dragging Neanderthal who likes nothing better than beating up a geek before breakfast and then going to score behind the bike shed before chucking a chair at the maths teacher and making the lives of the nice but dim kids a misery."

And one was from gazzalw: "If you had the choice would you opt for a grammar school or a comprehensive that has gangs?"

Soooo, do people really think that all comprehensives have vicious gangs, and all GS children are angels? Or that only those of academic ability adequate enough to get them through the 11+ should not have to face behavioural disruption of any kind? If you are borderline, or struggling but still work hard, should you just have to put up with disruption because let's face it you're not academic?

PS, re the knuckle dragging Neanderthals I mention above, should have said - "and that's only the girls"

Seeker

You misunderstood me, I was not saying going to Oxford at 14 was a spectacular advantage, (though in many folks' eyes it would be seen as that), I was saying that having thousands of hours of often specialist tuition (like some of the home educated child geniuses have had) from a full time stay at home parent has likely put them at a spectacular advantage ...to someone who has to share his teacher with 30 others!

Spectacular advantage (not in life) but in relative chances of getting top grades to get into Oxbridge in that subject ...and I was also thinking of Ruth Lawrence also. I suspect once they get into Oxbridge and later their "genius" evens out to a level compared to their peers (albeit at uni thier peers may be two or three years older)...Again, I am not decrying thier achievements, just exploring the factors that got them there- heavy parental involvment being a common one

Ruth Lawrence was a prodigy rather than a genius.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruth_lawrence
she developed her skills early (with a lot of pressure)
but they are not off the scale compared with other excellent mathematicians

"So isn't it a bit silly to go judgy pants on parents who use music as a measure of success?"

You misunderstand me. I was talking about the use of doing things incredibly early as a measure of success. Which many people seem to do, whether ti's potty training or grade 7. Not using achievement as a measure of success.

"You would be surprised..."

What would I be surprised by? That the children of parents who value and who are involved in their education do better? No I wouldn't!

TalkingPeace2

I agree, tis the media that uses terms such as "chilld genius"...note that the link you posted make the point that her father continued to play an active part in her education ...even accompanying her to all lectures and tutorials...so he was a full time tutor /advisor to her even at uni...in that way, she had a distinct advantage in terms of academic progression at least that time.

I tell my DS, it's 10% smarts and 90% hard work...

Richard Feynman (who WAS a genius) said that the upper limit of a person's intelligence is fixed by their genes. All that changes is the speed at which they reach that upper limit. Some people never do. He felt that he reached his upper limit during his second degree.

Sadly the grammar school / selective system is a function of the steepness of the learning slopes, not the eventual upper plateau.

Hence why I am in favour of comps where even the late developers (and August babies) get chances

Seeker

I was using the example of two (state educated) sons of illiterate parents who got into Cambridge in response to your post:

but what about all the children whose parents don't have the ability, the time, the education, the confidence, the understanding, the interest or the inclination to do that?

Thier parents did not have the "education. confidence, understanding....." (or money for tutors)....but they placed a great deal of emphasis on their boys at home on the value of a good education

When mine were babies and then toddlers I would inwardly smile when parents proudly told me how theirs had learned to walk earlier than other kids or how they could count their fingers earlier than other kids. It is IMO not a significant indicator of ability later on in life.

So I agree with you there. However, when we are talking about real achievements like formal exams I do think it is a big deal if you achieve it while young. By that I don't simply mean doing your GCSE at 15.

To be frank, I don't think those with parents who lack just about everything are ever going to be contenders for grammar school. And twas ever thus. Children from poor homes who have achieved well academically nearly always have supportive backgrounds.
I recently read Jeanette Winterson's autobiography and she mentions that in the past workers' clubs would run classes in literature and so on that were very popular. Also church attendance led to people becoming literate by osmosis. JW's personal background may not be been exactly supportive, but it didn't suffocate any chance of achievement which is what many, many children now face.

If it is a choice between braying the demons out of gay children or helping them do their maths....

I wanted to do things fairly young, graduated at 20, City job fairly young, lots of children after an early marriage. Some people just mature earlier than others. In terms of very very young however it does not always advantage children although children tend to be more malleable before they are teenagers so if you can get them to things before then you often secure some kind of advantage.Ours did quite a lot of fairly hard music exams fairly young simply because I like playing the piano for them and ilke brownie badges some children like that outward manifestation of their "success" but it could just as easily have been some sport if I were into that.

If you simply have a reasonable bright child as some of do rather than a genius type then they just need encouragement.

Our oldest did not even really read much until 6. Her sister was reading just about anything at 3. In their 20s now they have almost identical exam results and career paths.

On work v ability it is a mixture. The Outliers book suggests 10,000 hours of work are needed eg Bill gates put that into programming as a teenager, the Beatles into playing music in Berlin etc etc.

They studied two boys pushed into maths by their parents who have done exams early. Their father is trying to prove it is parental effort not innate brains which makes a difference BUT on an IQ test they both scored about 140 and their father is very bright so I don't think his test is proved.

Xenia
but of course those who are able to put in the 10,000 hours (as both of us have done in our chosen professions too) are often brighter.
Interesting about your two DDs - proves the point that with support they will all get there, but at their pace
hence my loathing of cutoffs at the start of puberty (as the 11+ is)

Hmmm, I'm wondering if I've put in 10,000 hours on Mumsnet yet, and what expertise that might confer on me

The older one is slightly dyslexic so that was probably the reason. She got into her school a year young at 4 as she's quite clever but then stayed down into the right year group at 6 and did much much better at the senior bit of the school.

A man who writes for the Sunday Times wrote about how he was one of our champion tabletennis players at 12 as were 4 other boys from streets here him simply because their state primary had the national coach and those boys played a lot every day. If you aren't bright or aren't sporty etc then it's hard to get good. I have perfect pitch many many of the best musicians never develop - it's a strange genetic thing which in music actually can just make things hard as it is difficult to transpose as you hear the keys differently but it does make some aspects of music easier. My mother had it too so it probably does pass down a bit although you would only ever find out you have it if you do enough music to find that out.

The biggest issue for parents is deciding to what extent you want to be a Tiger parent. Put no input into children and most don't do very well. Devote your lives to them as some kind of project with 4 hour sessions a day at whatever it is you want to make them good at (a) that is probably not what most of us want to do and (b) could be cruel to the child or could be a huge gift to them depending on whether you're Asian or not I suppose. Most of us come somewhere in the middle.

My IQ as a child was about 124 I think - we were tested due to my father's job. At 21 at home via Mensa it was 158 at home and 152 under a supervised test with others. I have no idea which is it. I suspect at 21 I was at the then height of my learning powers so practice came into it. So was that innate - I found my mother's IQ test results from her 50s after my death all in the 140s. My father was pretty clever too. So you would expect genetics to play a part but they also were very good at encouraging us and teaching us at home - I read the Times leader columns to my father in the car on the way to school every day as a teenager etc - in other words there was input there too. So unless you test identical twins separately adopted it's hard to work out what counts. My father certainly thought things were about 50% environment and 50% genes and I tend to think that is true too.

Not the good exam results is the one sole key to life success and happiness of course.

Actually my typing's probably improved !
I wonder what my wpm would be now ?!

"Seeker

I was using the example of two (state educated) sons of illiterate parents who got into Cambridge in response to your post:

but what about all the children whose parents don't have the ability, the time, the education, the confidence, the understanding, the interest or the inclination to do that?

Thier parents did not have the "education. confidence, understanding....." (or money for tutors)....but they placed a great deal of emphasis on their boys at home on the value of a good education"

They may not have had the education, confidence or understanding- although they may well have literate in their first language. But they did have the interest and inclination. Many children score none out of my list of 7. What do you suggest happens to them?

"To be frank, I don't think those with parents who lack just about everything are ever going to be contenders for grammar school"

Which is as newt an encapsulation of why grammar schools are a bad idea as i've ever read!

parents who lack just about everything are ever going to be contenders for grammar school
surely the point of free education for all is to look at the capabilities of the child, not the parent.....

Well, that's the theory, TalkinPeace.

In practice, it's all about those that have getting more and devil take the hindmost.

seeker
Don't I know it.
My catchment school is dire. ALL of the parents who give a stuff (nearly 2/3 of the ones in catchment) have their kids at other schools.
Making the catchment school nearly empty full of the children whose parents do not care.
So the spiral continues.

Bliar's "parental choice" acting directly against social mobility.

I agree with Seeker - at least in a comprehensive (and I am working on the assumption that comps will or do set - every school I've ever taught in does - including the one I am now, which is in a grammar area, so a sec mod by MN standards - it's never referred to itself as such though) every child is judged by its own capabilities.

Having read all the posts on this, and the other thread, I haven't seen a single convincing argument for keeping grammar schools. I used to teach in a school which was the top comp in that county. The results were fantastic - regularly performing better than independent schools. Those children weren't pulled down by being in mixed ability groups for GCSE Option subjects, or by having a spread (say A*-B) in top sets.

I imagine that most schools use FFT data for target setting. It is the FFT targets I, as a teacher, am measured against - we don't set targets internally, and therefore we can't be accused of having low expectations - far from it. If students fail to meet their targets, I am held to account. Last year, the only one of my Year 11 students who didn't either reach or exceed her target had an attendance of about 30%.

Seeker

"Illiterate" means just that - these parents could not read or write in any language ...they simply came from a developing country and never managed enough schooling ...which makes their sons' achievement even more commendable. They must have been very driven. I know it's only one example, but it does show some people can rise above their background through education with parental encouragement even if those parents cannot practically help.

I agree if some children lacked a nurturing environement for educatiuon at home, unless they have a remarkable character that drives them to escape that through education, else they risk having have a distinct disadvantage to those who come from a middle class background with graduate /professional parents who value education and have a house full of books. Yes, in an ideal world that should be remedied at school so everyone is evened out, but it is manifest even at five yesr old and given the demographics and current system and pressures of large class rooms - that would be a remarkable school who could wholly compensate for that lack of parental nurturing in the in the school day.

seeker:

You chose a GS education for your DD because the Sec Mod wasn't brilliant.

A lot of parents choose a GS education for their DCs for the same reason.

I chose an indie because the comps in my area weren't brilliant.

How come, out of all of us, you are the only one that feels for those that got left behind and the only one that cares about the impact on those left behind?

We are all walking the same walking. The difference is that the rest of us are honest about it

Amber - I completely agree with you - having seen both what you are describing (worked in London, in a school with a lot of immigrant families, many of whom lacked education but instilled a real work ethic into their children) but I think we've gone full-circle - grammar schools are full of kids whose parents help them with the test - whether paying for tutors or tutoring themselves, so the children who are bright but without supportive parents miss out. It shouldn't be about that.