Do we have unrealistic expectations about our DCs academic ability?

[teslagirl]

Many moons ago when I was at a girls grammar, doing 'O' levels, about 1/3 of us got to do 'triple science' as it's now known. So a 1/3 of the top 5% academically, in the area....

We all did French (O level or CSE) but 3/5s of us got to do a second language, and 1/5 a 3rd language.

As for A levels, you had to be REALLY clever to do those subjects!

So- and this may be controversial- why am I getting emails from friends choosing secondaries bemoaning the fact a school only lets its most able children do physics GCSE? Or Mandarin? These mums are people like me, by and large. One's an office manager, one a health care professional. We're middle of the road. We all did French for 5 years yet can barely buy a coffee in Paris. I alone have a hard fought for physics O level! We have professional diplomas/BTEC's.

So why do we feel our DCs are disadvantaged before they start secondary by the fact the school only puts its 'most likely to succeed' in for 'hard science' and 'hard language'? These are difficult subjects! You either have an aptitude or you don't! And bear in mind the schools DO offer the subjects to their brighter DCs! And many other permutations for its more vocational intake.

The prep school mum spoke with DELIGHT that the academically selective secondary offers Mandarin/Arabic or Japanese at Y8. But what's the good of that if her DS after 3 years now, can barely string a sentence together in French? He doesn't have an aptitude for it. Why do we so kid ourselves that somehow sitting a DC down in a given class will enable that child to become proficient in that subject?

Thing is, surely evidently the Curriculum has recognised that say, hard science isn't for all thus has concocted 'Applied science/Science in the Community' or whatever they're called to give the less academically able DCs a grounding in science without needing to encounter Planck's Constant or Boyle's Law? This is surely a good thing!

I do feel though that 2 of my friends in this situation are blaming their own schooling for the fact they're now 'merely' health care professionals and office managers- but surely once you've hit 40 you've had all the time in the world to remedy perceived poor schooling? And if you haven't (and it's an issue to you) PERHAPS you're working at the limit of your academic ability. I know I am and I can't blame MY grammar school education!

Are we lining ourselves and our DCs up for disappointment?

You are right.

I wish more parents would think the same as you! I think too many either want their children to do what they did or do what they wished they had done rather than doing what is best for their dc.

I got a D in physics O level and was delighted - was told by my teacher at the end of the first year of O levels that I had reached my potential in that subject!

And I am not for one moment condemning ambition! I just am getting the feeling that so many of 'us' think that the reason we don't have A level Russian is because that lousy, good for nuthin' school didn't put us down for it!

IS this a product of the 'None shall Fail/All shall have prizes' culture- that 'we' now believe that ALL DCs have the potential to be all things?

That bloody Muzzy language advert's a good illustration of this. I loathe that advert with passion, talking about giving toddlers a competitive advantage fgs!!

I agree with you totally, teslagirl!

I totally agree

'but surely once you've hit 40 you've had all the time in the world to remedy perceived poor schooling? '

Agree with this too, i left school with no quals, went back in later in life and got what i needed to have the career i wanted.

Plus don't you think doing certain subjects a certain sort of 'snobbery' value' and children do them just to show the they are 'bright' and not because they particularly want to are will be any use to them???

Many many moons ago the brightest children at my school got to do German as well as French. It was quite a big thing and I remember the whole year gathered together in the hall and the 'successful' ones were called out to the front a la X-Factor. Those who didn't did art. Now I wanted to do art (and was quite good at it) but the school wouldn't let me (and unfortunately my parents agreed) and I had to do German. It was ridiculous as the German teacher was appalling and most of use just scrapped through the 'O' level but everyone wanted their child to do German because it showed their child was the best. I have never used German although do use French alot as we choose to holiday in French speaking countries.

Hur hur! Not any more

My DCs are bloody gorgeous but academic high-fliers they are not! Well not yet. Maybe the penny will drop some day soon but I have no expectations of such.

I hate, hate, hate, hate Muzzy!

If you really want your child to learn another language, go and live abroad. Being able to say 'bonjour' does not a French speaker make! How on earth does doing Muzzy, and spending more time infront of a screen, give any child a competitive advantage?

"surely once you've hit 40 you've had all the time in the world to remedy perceived poor schooling?" Agree with this too. Evening classes, OU - education doesn't have to stop at 18.

To be honest I went to a school where it was compulsory for every pupil to do 2 languages and I am glad that they did, so can't really comment on what it would have been like to do fewer languages. However, I think that if somebody really wants to learn Mandarin they will, whether or not its offered at school.

I agree teslagirl. An IQ of 100 is average, this is because it is a measurement of most people's intelligence. If most people had an IQ of 130 then that would be the new 100.
Academic schools want academic children with higher than average IQs and yet everyone seems to see this as the best, regardless of whether it suits their DC. The answer seems to be that if their DC can't just walk in and pass a test then they must be tutored or spend hours doing practise tests until they can pass the test. This ignores the fact that once they get there they have to manage the work. I think it must be very hard to have slogged and slogged to get there and be sitting next someone who effortlessly seems to get top marks, especially when your parents are expecting you to get top marks.
I would have thought that if you know your DC can't get in without 'blood,sweat and tears' then you should find a different school! I wish they could devise a test that sorts DCs basic intelligence and is impossible to prepare for!
I also think that it is sad that we place so much importance on academic achievement and can't celebrate the really practical people, those with artistic ability, the organisers etc etc.
Too many people seem to expect their DCs to do all the things that they didn't do or manage themselves. If you are keen on mandarin you can learn it as a adult! It is never too late to realise your own ambitions-you do not need your DC to do them for you.

Of course grammar school tests were supposed to test basic intelligence, but now everyone tutors for them too. So even if the test would be a good way of sorting out general intelligence, it's all skewed because Johnny has spent a year practising papers and is really fast now and Bradley has never seen a paper before in his life.

I agree that people do all seem to expect their children to be academically more able than they were.

My Dad got an OU Physics degree in his 70's.

I think another issue is that there used to be a whole swathe of professions that you could enter via professional exams rather than going to uni. It was possible to become an accountant or an engineer by leaving school at 15/16. Now, (although it is still possible to become an accountant by taking exams) everybody focuses on getting A-levels and going to university. The idea that everybody has to take three years to study in an academic environment has become the norm.

More to the point, having taught at 16-19 yr olds for a period, why on earth aren't people more worried about the shockingly bad level of basic English and Maths that their children leave school with these days?

You have a Mandarin GCSE? Great! But you don't have grasp of basic English grammar and can't add up without a calculator

I also hate Muzzy

and agree with the op to an extent - although someone being poor at french doesnt necessarily mean they will be poor at Mandarin - also a broad curriculum is to be welcomed, surely?

Sorry, my grammar wasn't very good there, was it?

Excuse typos.

I'm with you on that MrsM! Although I must admit that it wasn't until I studied a foreign language that I truely understood and appreciated English grammar.

One of my particular bugbears is 'gotten' instead of 'got'. When did that become exceptable other than than in the Wild West of America.

I think a broad curriculum is important. And also I think 10 y-o probably too young for the reality check.

Doesn't that come in secondary school? When dcs are exposed too all subjects, and discover which ones they are good at, and also discover that actually they have absolutely no idea what the chemistry teacher is talking about?

At end of primary it's all optimism and boundless hope isn't it?

By the end of secondary you realize what they can do and what they clearly haven't any idea of.

So I don't think they are unrealistic expectations, I think they are just expectations.

I mean if your friends are sending you emails about their children when they are in Y10 which say 'Oh it's v. annoying, Steve should be doing Mandarin but he's totally useless and says he hates it, but I'm still insisting he does the GCSE' then they are loopy and unrealistic.

I guess I'd be less- well, 'irritated' at my friends' emails IF they'd also said "The school have got GREAT woodworking workshops! And you should SEE their dance studios!" But no. Just the usual suspects of say Physics and Mandarin.

I too think it's an excellent idea to do A language. I also believe learning another language does help you understand English better. But it's a long shot to believe that if French or German or Spanish, whatever that first offered language is doesn't cut it with you, the OBVIOUS thing is a SECOND language! Or a third! What about recognition that maybe, that DC might be better off doing something OTHER than language?

I think the "All shall have access to everything always" attitude that pervades state education is wrongheaded. Note I haven't for a second advocated that a DC should be PREVENTED from trying out a language, science, art, woodwork, sport etc etc upon entry to secondary. But once the EVIDENCE of ability or lack of becomes apparent, if the school doesn't ACT upon that evidence, you get the triple whammy of a) flogging a dead horse and b) NOT taking that 'dead time' and instead offering that DC a subject which he/she MIGHT excel at, like motor mechanics/cake decorating,; and c) a DC who can leave school a jack of all trades and master of none. Completely non directed. It's not like there is no recourse for that DC, as they mature and change to be able to GO BACK into education and pursue, perhaps with far greater vigour those subjects that they couldn't or didn't study at school. Haven't we all marvelled at the focus and motivation mature university students bring to their studies?

Finally- and I may well be wrong here, but it strikes me that over MANY years of evidence based research, Educational Theory would have it that BY AND LARGE, you don't tend to get a DC who is functionally illiterate in English who then shines at GCSE Spanish, or a DC who can barely count blitzing Physics GCSE.

Standards of teaching are another issue I'm not going into here!

The GCSE exams are a world away from O levels. My teachers used old O Level questions to help bridge the gap to A-Level. Ten years ago at least one of the boards started allowing French dictionaries in exams! They are not anywhere near as 'difficult' as they used to be. My mother did O level French and had a much better grasp of French grammar than most native speakers! The focus had changed so much by the time I sat my GCSEs that you didn't need most of what she had learnt.

Schools are measured by pass results and they know that it's easier for children to get good marks in some subjects than in others. I hate the fact that children are being denied the opportunity to try, and possibly fail, to make the school look good in league tables.

When I was at school it was certainly possible to pass O level physics (and chemistry) with a very poor grasp of English. Those who went on to do science A levels had to also do compulsory English classes. I went to a selective grammar school.

Personally I'd be a annoyed with MY comp. if they were still effectively wasting my non-academic DC's time by MAKING them do physics and Mandarin if they EVIDENTLY had no hope of passing when they COULD be doing motor mechanics and cake decorating instead! I would feel the school had failed to ascertain my DCs strengths, weaknesses and aptitudes.

Bear in mind the schools I'm talking about have the ability to TEACH all these subjects, it boils down to whether a given DC has the aptitude or- dangerous word, here 'INTELLIGENCE' to study it successfully.

Possible GCSEs are a world away from O levels though I think you'd find current educational orthodoxy would have it that GCSEs are in no way, shape or form less rigorous that the O level.... However, it STILL doesn't mean that every child SHOULD by right be expecting to learn Mandarin and triple science to GCSE.

Mollie- English GCSE ability isn't necessarily an indicator of ability or otherwise in science. But I did say I felt an understanding of numeracy was!