Nature v Nurture / Achievement v Progress

[KarenIronside]

Today's blog: Intelligence: Nature v Nurture and it's role in Education

www.meopinionatedreally.wordpress.com

Parents are often blinded by education terms and levels and can often struggle to understand exactly how they are to know if their child is doing ok. As a teacher, I understand only too well how complex this area is.

This post doesn't attempt to thoroughly explain the system but it does attempt to question it and perhaps show some home truths you have yet to come by.

Enjoy - I would love to hear your feedback good or bad.

Thanks

Karen

Agree with every word. My argument against performance related pay is who defines 'performamce' ? I think I've 'performed' better with the child who has a chaotic home life and been abused and they get a C, not the lucky kid who has mum at home helping him write his assessment plans who gets an A. But according to Mr Gnome I am wrong.

I absolutely agree. In a world where there was a clear and clearly defined way of assessing a teachers performance then I'm all for performance pay. Why should I be paid less than a jobs worth when I kill myself for the children. Without this clearly defined system it is so risky. I'm lucky I totally trust my head to make the right call but I've worked for heads who wouldn't have.

Very interesting.
Especially as my children are adopted, so we are not 'responsible' for the nature but are 'responsible' for the nurture (since adoption anyway).

With my elder child I have certainly seen some 'under expecting'. There have been times when we have known she is under achieving compared with her capability, but the school have not spotted / acknowledged it, as she has made 'expected' progress (but from a low starting point due to early life).

Children who've been in care are always an interesting group as Ofsted will specifically ask to see data on these groups. Understandably some of these children are significantly behind their peers pury because of disrupted childhoods. These children therefore tend to be first in line for additional support.

Not all children who've been in care of course are behind their peers and so ensuring the ones who data wise are the safe kids still make suitable progress is the key thing.

I also listened to this programme and it definitely did not say that 30-40% of intelligence was inherited. It said that 30-40% of intelligence COULD be heritable...which is something very different.
It could also be the case that well educated, intelligent parents value education and therefore ensure that their children are well prepared for school and are used to delayed gratification

Thank you for your correction. I have updated my blog to reflect this. Yes I agree that valuing education is an absolute key to a child's progress and attainment.

I have read it,
I don't agree with the underlying view that testing young children is wrong, or that setting a bald level of expectation for all regardless of ability or background is wrong.
The horrendous state of the welsh education system following removal of compulsory testing, and the u-turn now being made, shows that testing of teacher effectivness by testing children is vital.
Schools are able to report value added scores which invalidates the arguement that if you've children with a low starting point their achievements wont be recognised.

The nature v nuture debate has been blown out on the water by some schools in places like Hackney, Tower Hamlets, Newham or other deprived parts of London. The problem is that high quality education costs money. London schools are outstanding because of the "London Challenge"

www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/dec/11/london-challenge-turned-poor-schools-around

www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationopinion/10475000/London-schools-are-a-UK-education-success-story.html

Unfortunately money for this initative has been cut rather than extending it the rest of the country.