Selective independants

[poppydoppy]

Do they look better on League tables because the standard of teaching is better or just because they select the children most likely to do well?

That is interesting married and I know you've mentioned before what sort of category he's in (stellar). Did he go from a science to a humanity or the other way round? Or which variation? Give me a clue! And what was it that sparked the new interest? Or had he been told by school that the original route was what students like him do? So many clever students have more than one interest, which is why I'm always a bit about a fixed passion at the age of 17/18.

Just want to offer or or to TIP and Seeker for your long-term commitment to these threads. Wish I had your stamina, I really do. Me, I tend to zone out after about 30 seconds after the usual brag-fest about whose child is at the best school!

Atm I am supporting a friend whose child is going through an utterly catastrophic time at a top 10 public school. If it weren't so sad it would make me roffle that people honestly think you can buy your children a better life by paying through the nose for an independent education.

I know a few high achievers. None of them are happier than me, have a warmer house than me or have more food to eat than me. Some of them might have better relationships within their families (but that has 0 to do with schooling) and of course they all have more money than me. But having money is stressful in itself. As I said, none of them are happier than me. I would not change places.

seeker
People have explained this to you before; critical mass.

You can't justify a class for a smattering of kids. You just can't divert resources that way, not when there aren't enough resources to ensure that all DC can even access the curiculum.

For example, DS is currently working on a piece in French that would be beyond what my DD could tackle. She's in the top set for french and will get an A*. Probably will do A level in it. To make it worth having a French class doing what DS is doing, you need numbers!

For example he studying quite tough French literature in year 9, which of course he needn't. It won't get him an A. But the MFL department sem to treat GCSEs as a minor irritant.* This for me sums it up perfectly.

It's about expectation first and foremost. The focus is not on the exam but on the education of the child (that thing that even if they are stuck in a desert dying of thirst, they still have with them). I wanted an education for my children, not just a bunch of exam results. The exam results should be a by-product, not an end result. The extra resources in independent go towards achieving the aims.

And teaching can and does happen with a blackboard under a baobab tree (to quote one of my wonderful university lecturers)- you don't need a load of expensive hardware and software, just dedicated, talented teachers.

Mintyy
I participate because DHs work involves going to all sorts of schools and the views of the parents are a form of CPD

My sister is an ex public school top Uni high achiever. She is clever, rich, highly paid, very successful, taller than me, has a lovely (public school) husband and gorgeous son.
She and I get on a storm because there is more to life than money.

Talkin since we're being utopian I'd include an even mix of all subjects, though I wouldn't include sport as a subject (it would come incidentally anyhow, as would music and drama and art, even if they weren't separately included at the outset, which I'd like them to be).

talkin DH has also been involved in university outreach. And I've been involved in profession based outreach. It's not even close to being a panacea but for some subjects (not the ones that DH and I are involved in, as it happens) it could make a gigantic difference, especially in the wake of years of dumbing down or rather narrowing the focus in some subject.

As for science - of course I'm not saying ignore science. But not everyone can be a scientist. Not even everyone at Winchester is good enough at science to become a scientist even if every single pupil the wanted to be one. Same with medicine and vet Sci. This relentless focus on those being the only subjects that matter is doing serious damage now to other subjects and to the esteem of kids who are gifted in those subjects. We do not, as a country or indeed as a world, need everybody to be good at music. We do not need everybody to be good at philosophy. But neither do we need everyone to be forced down the route declared by the soulless minions of orthodoxy to be the One True Path to braininess. It's as if the whole country had gone collectively mad, to be honest.

The % of children who genuinely need to be educated separately because their 'special educational need' of being exceptionally intelligent is of such a high order that they cannot be efficiently and effectively educated in a mainstream school is probably far less than 5%. Probably fractions of 1% - the top 2% of ability encompasses the same total range of ability as from 2% to 98% combined (because of the shape of the normal distribution curve) and the very top of that 2% is therefore really quite extreme, whereas the child at the 98th centile is actually still quite close to the 'average'

Giftedness literature varies, but some authors say 1 in 10,000 level is 'exceptionally gifted', not the 1 in 20 implied by top 5%, and it is only those 1 in 1000 or 1 in 10,000 children who have utterly different needs and thus need special treatment - those who do University level maths at primary age, not those who get 10A* vs a child with 8As and 2 Bs at GCSE.

And yes, a 'special school' type provision for those VERY rare children is sensible. But not for the top 5% - someone on the 95th or 96th centile is well able to thrive within mainstream education.

It isn't as drastic as humanity to science yellowtip. I have tried to pm you but can't at the moment - there seems to be a problem with the website. Paradoxically he's a bright boy in a very selective school but certainly not stellar within his micro-environment.

As I said, wordfactory- I need advantages that outweigh the disadvantages. Your French whizz could be in the top set of a comprehensive with the other A* candidates, and have outside coaching to top up.

(I am a 'normally bright' - PhD educated, Cambridge 1st - type person, and I suppose if my picture of 'high intelligence' was someone like me, or someone like my children (also 'normally bright' in the same mould) then I would view this slightly differently. However I also know 2 '1 in 10,000' bright people - 1 an adult, 1 a child' - and recognise that their intelligence is utterly unlike mine, and utterly unlike that normally regarded as 'top 5%' etc. I know that they have needed a very different type of education)

Russians
Is there pressure on everybody to become scientists?
DH and I have actually persuaded DD that Biomedical will be better for her (and the planet) than vet school.
But until media types are no longer permitted to greet DH with "I know nothing about science" science still needs pushing.

teacherwith2kids
The views of Richard Feynmann on genius are very interesting : he was very anti segregating the incredibly bright off from the rest of us because it makes them so isolated that they may never properly re integrate - that was why he did not like the IAS at Princeton.

Teacher I'm not sure it's as simple as that either: personality plays a huge part as well. I have 3 children with IQs tested at between 133 and 145 at various points. Children 1 and 3 were absolute buggers through primary school and not a bed of roses through secondary but child 2 with similar IQ has been absolutely fine all the way through and would probably have been fine anywhere.

seeker But why should he have to sacrifice his free time to be taught at an appropriate level? And lose the opportunity to do the sort of extra curricular stuff that actually matters far more in educational and roundedness terms than a sheaf of GCSE certificates? It's bonkers. And deeply unfair.

And by "an absolute bugger" I mean school refusal/self-harm/disengagement/refusal to take part, not beating the hell out of other kids.

Duchesse - which is why I believe that assessment for such 'special schools' would, like the assessment for current 'special schools' be via a battery of tests and observations by Ed Psychs or the like. A single measure of 'intelligence' alone would not be sufficient to determine who would need segregated education and who would do best in mainstream - as is common practice in SEN education at the moment.

Russians
whereas the cluster / federated system would allow the top one or two from each of a group of schools to work together
and different kids in different subjects
and no exclusion of those without rich or motivated parents
and will be cheaper than setting up yet more schools

(to clarify, multipe tests and observations inform the decision as to whether a child would do best in SS or in mainstream)

Sciences are prioritised at GCSE and A level in the current league table environment at the expense of arts and humanities subjects. And at the expense of diversity in MFL teaching too. How can it be right that double science is a requirement but one single humanity and one single MFL (and zero arts subjects) are required for the currently mandated measure of acceptable attainment? There should be more and better science teaching in all schools - but it shouldn't be imposed on kids who have other interests or talents and who have achieved an acceptable minimum level of understanding.

My 2 problem children's teachers just thought it a good idea to tell me my children were autistic/immature/naughty/lazy instead. It got quite boring in the end.

talkin Exactly. That's why I proposed it.

Teacher- that's basically what happened with my DD1.

Please carry on trying to pm married, I'm genuinely interested. Bright in that environment will be just fine :) (stellar could end up spooky).

teacher
do you think that kids should be fully segregated from mainstream schools - top and bottom of normal distribution - or units attached to main schools
(and I am not including those who are disruptive by breain chemistry)

I'm a fan of the top 5% precisely because it allows 'normality' whilst not noticeable adversely affecting those in the 95% school. I set huge store by normality, for all sorts of reasons.