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?

I am a great believer in comprehensive education but I think it falls down because it treats all DC the same. It is pointless teaching French to a DC who has no aptitude or interest; but they might excel at motor mechanics. My dyslexic DS struggled with English, I could accept him doing French but not a second foreign language in yr 8. I managed to stop it and get him extra English lessons instead but only because I pushed. I shouldn't have had to push.

I agree with you.

Though not exactly about the languages- I grew up in Sweden, after all, where realistically, most people did need some English. And if you were going onto uni or to work in the tourist industry/business then a second or a third language were important assets. So we were never told you could be too dim to learn another language.

But about the rest. We were also made to do woodwork and textiles and mechanics was always an option. As it shoul be.

And of course, no pushy schools or pushy parents as there were no selective schools, hardly any private schools and only one secondary per catchment area.

Our school doesn't treat all the children the same. The vast majority of children do 10-11 GCSEs, with 5-6 core subjects including a language. A smaller group take 5-6 GCSEs and do some vocational or business-type studies - really good courses at our great local college. An even smaller group take only a very few GCSEs, if any, and do lots of vocational, business and basic skills courses, again partly at school and partly at college. This is from Yr10, so age 14.

Abbey I have the same issues with DS. He has had to do French and German since Yr 7 but has dyslexic problems.
In year 8 he now really hates French and has given up trying. If he had been allowed just to do German he would have been fine as it is very phonological. He would be more than happy to do extra english instead as he really enjoys it despite the very creative spelling.
I see absolutely no point in a child without a proven aptitude for languages being made to do more than one.

Cory, am I right in thinking Sweden has its house in order in SO many ways the English could learn from?!

My DH went to the one and only secondary in the small country town he grew up in in rural Australia. That comprehensive got DCs to uni to do science (eg DH!) and taught other DCs how to lay a straight line of fencing and - get this -artificially inseminate a cow! These were sons of farmers, of course...Can you imagine the hew and cry here if there was an understanding that a farmer's son who only wanted to run and inherit dad's farm could bes 'channelled' into those subjects at school that would help him achieve that ambition as opposed to forcing Mandarin and Physics on him??

And we all know you CAN be too dim to learn a foreign language! I worked in Bavaria for a year at 18 and there were plenty of young people who'd studied English for 12 years at school who couldn't conduct a basic conversation in English, which is fair enough. As you say, foreign language (read: English perhaps?!) learning in Europe is far more 'relevant' than learning French or German is here. It's the way things are.

Mind you, I have heard that the Swedish school system is going downhill. They have brought in private schools and are introducing lots and lots of options...I think they'll pass us on their way down

aargh!

I think the trouble is that people get mixed up with 'having to study a subject' and 'having the OPPORTUNITY to study a subject' (sorry don't know how to do bold type, am not shouting) or go to university or whatever. I think it is right that all children should have the opportunity to study certain subjects but that does not mean that all children have the ability to do so. And I am not sure how you get round that these days (perhaps by only offering the 'opportunity' to certain children..that wouldn't go down very well). I certainly remember from my grammar school days being forced to do some subjects so much so that it put me off them for life, I certainly didn't 'enjoy' them, and I certainly couldn't 'do' them, ie Chemistry!!

Mm. But do schools have the resources to 'allow all children the opportunity' regardless of whether that DC has a snowball in hell's chance of getting anywhere with it? Isn't that what we call 'a hobby'? Surely a DC WHO IS CAPABLE (mine doesn't do bold either!) should be given the opportunity- within reason!- even hyper clever DCs have only so many waking hours per day... but not necessarily all comers.

And couldn't 'allowing' a 'not-capable' child to study a difficult subject potentially instil that DC with a sense of failure WHEN they inevitably fail??

Did you not enjoy Chemistry because you couldn't do it, perhaps? I was forced to do chem. at a grammar, which I loathed and didn't do well in BUT I came away with enough chem. to be able to get into my chosen career!

Yes, that's what I mean! I hated Chemistry because I just couldn't do it. I am agreeing with you. There is no point in some children doing some subjects just for the sake of it being there. Some just won't be able to do it.

But I suppose the argument for offering all these extra subjects is that no child should be denied the opportunity to study a particular subject as for every child that doesn't have the ability there may be one that does, and they will never know unless they have a go, if you see what I mean.

I do agree with you, though, that there is no point in MAKING non academic children do very academic subjects, but then you are opening up an enormous discussion as to how exactly you decide who is deemed academic enough to do certain subjects.....don't fancy trying to sort that one out unless you choose a selective school (as I have done with my DCs). If the comprehensive schools want to be seen as not a 'dumping ground' for non academic children (which I most certainly do not agree with) then they have to offer the kind of opportunities that grammar school children have, I would think.

I think that all children should study Physics to at keystage 3 (11 to 14 year olds). In fact is complusory in all state schools up to 16 years old. A range of subjects gives a rounded education.

Physics is not terrifyingly difficult, at least at school level. A lot of it is confidence and having good teaching rather than having a high level of intelligence.

If a child with an IQ of say 100 wants to do Physics then I think they should be allowed to. Its sad if something as beautiful and wonderful as studying Physics is made elitist.

There are now a range of courses for all ablites. It is not like when we are at school of being O-level Physics or nothing.

In fact I saw children at the special school I work at having a wonderful Physics lesson. They are being prepared for an entry level science course. They had no idea they were being taught Physics so didn't perceive it as difficult.

Of course comprehensive schools should offer a very academic education for the high flyers, ours regularly sends DCs to Oxford and Cambridge. A lot of people prefer a good comprehensive to a grammar school. It just shouldn't treat every DC the same. The old secondary moderns didn't because they ranged from the DCs who were equally as clever as the grammar school DCs to those who could barely read and write.

Don't they cover physics in the general science they do KS3 and even in KS2? I remember dc's doing forces in the infants, they just don't call it physics.

Physics isn't in itself difficult. It's the LEVEL to which it's taught that might be! We're talking GCSE here. A GCSE Physics course. One suitable for a DC who has a demonstrated aptitude to study GCSE physics. A child with an IQ of 100 CAN study physics! That's where the " 'Applied science/Science in the Community' or whatever it's called' that I mentioned in my OP comes in!

Bagsforlife, regarding:" I do agree with you, though, that there is no point in MAKING non academic children do very academic subjects, but then you are opening up an enormous discussion as to how exactly you decide who is deemed academic enough to do certain subjects.....don't fancy trying to sort that one out unless you choose a selective school".

(sorry for direct quoting- always seems a bit aggressive to me!, Like "YOU said THIS but you're WRONG! I don't mean it like that at all!)...

My response? Easy!

Set 'em a test. You have 'x' places on the given level science/physics/ car mechanics course. You allocate the places according to how well they do in the test/interview/in the past year's unaided coursework. Bit like testing for academia via the 11+ but focused specifically on the foundations IN that subject the child has demonstrated (s)he knows.

My OP is that it annoys me how these particular parents of normal, average attainment themselves measure the suitability of a potential secondary for their own DCs via whether it offers GCSE triple science and Mandarin, lines of study that I associate with being relatively academically gifted (the DCs in question are no more clever than mine!) OK, it might be something to be aware of but REALISTICALLY I believe an observation of good, all round solid achievement- your '5 GCSEs, A-C inc Maths and English' is what they - and MOST of us should be looking at along with how serious is the school's provision and commitment towards these 'average' DCs? Where, by virtue of the very TITLE 'average' MOST of our DCs will sit!

I don't understand why you're so convinced that it takes great academic ability to study physics at GCSE.

I would rather have a school that said try hard and you might get a C than, oh that's too hard for you, do this instead and you'll definitely get a pass.

GCSE physics is not difficult. In fact school physics does not start to get seriously difficult until A-level. Even then AS level physics makes the leap in difficulty as gentle as possible.

I think that those who want to do Physics should be given a chance. Its certainly not something that can be ruled out as impossible at 11 years old. I think that children should be allowed to follow their dreams and schools should worry less about league tables. Failing GCSE physics is not the end of the world fgs. Sometimes teachers are proven wrong.

I think if there are more children who want to do Physics than there are places then the school should arrange more places to do GCSE physics. I would allow any child who has a level 6 in their key stage 3 SATs to do triple science if that is their desire.

When I was ten years old I was close to bottom of the class, however I developed late and I have a masters in Physics. Infact I even worked in Physics research before my son was born. Being good at Physics has more to do with hard work than ablity.

I am glad that you mentioned late developers Reallytired-not everyone shows their potential at 11! My ds1 went to a comprehensive, if we had remained in 11+ area I think he would have been borderline pass/fail. He studied physics at a very good university. I like teslasgirl's idea of a test to take the course.

A lot of the best physicists are/were late developers.

There is already test, its called key stage 3 SATS. I think that any child who wants to study physics should be allowed to, but at an approipate level. There is no point in tempting GCSE physics if you got a level 2 in your key stage 3, an entry level course would be appriopate.

However I think if a child gets a level 6 in their SATS then I think they should have the right to do three seperate sciences. If the school has an unusually high number of bright kids who want to study seperate sciences then they need to make extra provision.

Kids should be given opportunities that are in line with their ablity. They should not have to compete for places to study GCSE seperate science if they are all capable.

why do you say that a lot of physicists are late developers?
am interested because ex h studied physics, and is a late developer, as am I, though I only did it to A level.

OK, so I'm wrong. Here's me thinking that at least GCSEs in Hard Subjects like Physics might still require a modicum of analytical intelligence to pass but it would appear not.

All shall have prizes.

Lot of people on my physics degree course were late developers. Also a lot of physicists I have met in the work place were late developers as well.

I think this is partly because most people who do physics degrees are men and boys develop later than girls. There is an element of truth in the physics student stereo type of someone who is quiet and very melicious. Prehaps introverted and well behaved children get overlooked in the primary classroom and shine at secondary school more where there is a greater emphasis on written work and exams.

Or is it because late developers retain a child-like curiosity about the world when more precocious children are getting distracted by puberty? just a thought.

Everyone in my family has suffered in their time from being the class baby, and it is now happening to my children. Maybe they'll end up as physicists