The glass ceiling for very able children

[var123]

Has anyone else encountered the sense that the school is merely paying lip service to the ideals that they will challenge all children and work to bring all the children in the class to their potential?

I bumped along it a couple of days ago in a face to face conversation with one of the teacher's at my children's secondary.

He was full of buzzwords (like resilience and challenge) but there was a complete vacuum when it came to detail about how he planned to achieve that wrt to my children. In fact, he kept lapsing into telling me how my DC might help the others "by inspiring the less able".

Honestly, has there ever been a human being born into this world, who feels inspired to keep ploughing away at something due to being in the presence of someone who learned to do it without breaking stride?? People who struggle and then succeed are the inspiring ones because they make you feel like if you can do it, then maybe you can too. The ones who always find it easy and are just waiting for you to catch up so they can move on are just disheartening to contemplate.

I feel your pain wood my DD (yr7) is the same. Unfortunately, for her, it's a repeat of Yr6.
I don't think it's a question of 'diverting the problem' to other activities. The 'problem' be it English or Maths, particularly if it is a DC's favourite subject, needs to be addressed in school as for some DC's the 'knock on' effect causes disengagement with other academic subjects and results in a very unhappy child.
Unless one has 'lived experience' of this, the notion can be hard to understand.

I missed a school year when I was 10 and went to university at 17. That worked out fine.

You are right, of course, Bertrand. I wrote hurriedly. What I meant to say was why would you want to study something that you don't like, can't use and has no kudos attached to having a pass in it ? (I am thinking of DT and art in DS1's case. Although media studies came up today as another contender).

DeoGratias - that's great. (Are you on the wrong thread?)

"What I meant to say was why would you want to study something that you don't like, can't use and has no kudos attached to having a pass in it ? (I am thinking of DT and art in DS1's case. Although media studies came up today as another contender)."

Well, because in Year 7, you don't actually know whether you like new subjects or not. So anything new is worth having a go at. And it depends rather what you mean by kudos. Are you saying there is no kudos attached to having an A in art or music? My dn is studying architecture at Cambridge- she has As in DT and Art at both GCSE and A level. And, somewhat to my surprise, I have discovered that the GCSE media studies course is both challenging (if you want it to be) and interesting. My ds had just got a distinction* in BTec Sports Science- he found it the most crushingly boring thing he has ever done (I most certainly would not recommend it) but he learned some useful stuff and he is incredibly proud of himself for having stuck at it and done well.

Actually music maybe has some kudos. I am not sure about art though for anything that doesn't actually use art.

TBH I want to backtrack a bit. I 'd rather not try to guess and post my thoughts on how the rest of the world perceives subjects like these. Maybe when you are applying to sixth form college to do a Physics GCSE, they would look at art and think great. I do not know.

Physics A Level. I give up! I need some sleep before I post again!

I don't think it would be extremely rare to get 6/7 a* without remotely trying. That's 5 years to cover everything, and as the most able will already know lots, and quickly figure out new concepts, it leaves lots of scope for boredom.

When I said non academic, I wasn't really thinking gcse music/ art/ Pe. But tbh if you want to do stem subjects at university, and have no aptitude or interest in the latter, they aren't much use to you. I was actually thinking more of the vast amount of vocational qualifications that are only of any use if you might pursue that career, or have an interest in them. Hair and beauty, hospitality, btech art etc aren't acceptable replacements for academic ones for very able children.

"Maybe when you are applying to sixth form college to do a Physics GCSE, they would look at art and think great. I do not know."

No they wouldn't. They'd look at your A in physics GCSE, and probably your A in Maths, then count up your other As and say "welcome"

i am a bit baffled about the turn this thread has suddenly taken- away from engaging children's interest and providing them with challenges, and towards a purely mechanistic "what's the point of studying something that's not going to be useful" attitude.

No, just pointing out that able children can't always remain engaged with education through interest in another subject.

It does seem to me that there are people on here who are just determined that their children won't get anything out of school, and are just not prepared to even think about strategies that might help.........

I had similar issues- although a lot further to the left of the bell curve- with my ds, and we have gone a long way to solving them- by lateral thinking, open mindedness and a dash of making the best of it. All useful life skills!

I agree, the thread has gone a bit off the rails.

So, here's a question that I'd be interested to hear people's thoughts on:

If it is generally agreed that G&T students are less well catered for than almost every other group in terms of effort, resources and funding, what would it take for the government to decide to do something about it. (And I mean really do something about it - like complete reform of the experience not just a shiny new name and a new campaign that's no backed up with cold, hard cash)?

var

I'm not sure I dare post again, as we seem to fit in no man's land with dd school where some are concerned.

However, my tuppence worth is to go down the charitable status route, rather than fully government subsidised (state)

Going back to my dd school it really does work in terms of funding.

I don't think all round it's a beacon model of success.

However, the ethos of open to all irrespective of income is one that definitely works. I know at the end of the day it is private, but very few parents pay huge sums, some pay nothing, some like us pay a bit, some pay a bit more etc. You can be the poorest and your child gain a place.

I do agree though it would need to be one particular subject the child was gifted in.
I don't know any famous Mathematicians or Scientists but I'm sure that there are many who would invest time, money and resources for such a school.
This added to bequests (is that the word) gifts, donations etc.

I do feel strongly about it and have said so on here a few times now. It shouldn't matter what the subject is a child should have the opportunity to excel in a subject they have a gift for.

Its true that DC tend not to be complete all-rounders. Mine definitely aren't.

Maybe you are are right newlife. It obviously works for your DC and the meritocracy over income seems fair. Perhaps there isn't a global solution to be had, but rather a piecemeal one?

And you shouldn't feel that you can't post. All views are welcome. I don't like it when MN forms a pack and shouts people down!

Is that generally agreed? What does "Gifted and Talented" mean now? We have ditched the label. We look at high prior attainment students (KS2 level 5+) as a group, and deal with exceptionally able (maybe up to 10 students in a year group, including outstanding athletes, musicians etc as well as the most academically able) with something similar to an IEP. Our more able students make more progress than lower ability students (and that is the national picture). They are the most likely to access extracurricular and enrichment programmes, and I think it is unlikely we are unusual in that.

". I don't like it when MN forms a pack and shouts people down!"

I hope that wasn't directed at me- it's a bit difficult to be a pack of one!

"If it is generally agreed that G&T students are less well catered for than almost every other group in terms of effort, resources and funding,"

Well, is that generally agreed?

Do G&T students underperform more than any other group? For example, do the underperform more than, say, children on FSM, or Traveller children?

I was thinking of you when I added the caveat "generally", Bertrand!

I knew you'd pull me up on it otherwise. I think everyone agreed more or less except you and the teacher who upthread agreed that its always better to help a less able student get a better grade than help a more able student. G to an E, wasn't it?

I said "are less well catered for", why did you ask about underperformance? Its not the same thing and that would be to suggest that education is all about the exam results, which i think you've spent most of the afternoon contradicting.

So you mean generally agreed by the people on this thread?

I don't know whether it is true or not- I don't think it's something that can be "generally agreed" because some parents on a G&T thread, not all of whom use state education agree! Have you got any objective measures?

Of course! Are you the teacher i just referenced?

I'm just trying to find ways to measure this. You can't spend tax payers money unless you can show need and benefit. How would you measure it?

So, neither of you think its true that G&T DC are ...? Or you want to focus on the preamble to distract from the question I asked?

Because you can say "my child is disengaged with school because his giftedness has not been catered for," and you can know that to be true. But lots of other kids disengage with school- how do you know yours wouldn't be one of them, regardless of his ability?