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.

That's really interesting.... that private school was talking about it for science rather than humanities ... but that's not that well accepted by Unis ...

Ah well, another avenue then.

EPQ is well respected and well accepted for sciences. It just doesn't usually make any difference to getting offers at university, or to the grades required for A2. EPQ is more useful for biology/medical sciences than maths/physical sciences/engineering.

"I think we have to think hard about it, or just because we can't afford private, we might ruin his future"

Oh for goodness' sake. Worst case scenario - your child doesn't have the best possible experience he could and should have, in the five years he will spend in KS 3 and 4. That is not ok. It's not acceptable. We should all care about that.

But if that "ruins his future"... well, frankly, you've got more to worry about than what school he's about to attend.

Thank you, multivac, for lovely comment. Is it so wrong to think about best future possible for your own child? He has already achieved L4 end of KS1. I know NC has changed and it's harder now, but things he does at school is what he already know. So, I'm just worrying it will be the same for years to come. And I didn't ask you to care about my son.

Clearly, the concept of 'caring about the educational experience of someone else's child' is alien to you. Fair enough.

Most parents want the 'best possible future' for their child. It kind of goes with the territory.

Thinking that 'not being able to afford private school for five years' might "ruin" one's child's future... well, that's a little odd. You know what 'ruin' means?

My dd did an EPQ in a state school. She says it's the most useful thing she did in the 6th form.

Multivac -you're back!

Irvine - honestly it's not a bad thing to care, and you shouldn't have to defend yourself for it. You are in luck as time is on your side. A lot can change before your DS is 11/ 12
I get the impression that you are an expat? If that's correct, then maybe you won't even be in Britain in four years time?

multi I hated school, and it did effect me. When actually it should have been one of the few positives in a pretty shit childhood. My dd does not have my childhood, but that doesn't mean to say I'm ok for her to experience my education. And yes, I was also concerned for her future if she'd ended up at the hellhole that was no different to mine was years ago. And fwiw my presence in my school did not help anyone there, more likely it hindered them.

I know, var. It's like picking a scab. And I think I was the one being asked to defend 'caring', not irvine.

lurked is your present - your future back then - "ruined"?

"that doesn't mean to say I'm ok for her to experience my education"

....and hence my comment 'That is not ok. It's not acceptable. We should all care about that.'

If education doesn't affect our future, why does anyone bother? I mean, isn't that the whole point of education?
I certainly feel that for DH the lack of challenge in school had profound effects on both his degree class (which itself has a significant effect on subsequent options) and perhaps most importantly his self-confidence.

multi I would never call my life ruined, because I have my dd. And I don't want to imply school were the biggest or most influential factor in my life. I just really resent the fact they used a possible lifeline to push me further under.

Don't mistake me, I'm happy in my life now, and clawed my way back. Could have just done with skipping the crap to get there. But I'll never fufill my potential. And I don't want my dd to experience either my education or my life.

multivac my ds' life has been in part "ruined" by the awful treatment he got academically in elementary school. He suffers from mental health and medical issues that make it difficult to claw his way back. His mental health professionals are constantly telling me that they spend a large portion of his therapeutic time (which is A LOT of time every day) trying to reverse the lack of confidence in and hang ups about his academic abilities that were created by his teachers in elementary school. It is obscene that a child with a genius iq and a phenomenal memory should think that academics are not something he's good at because he was told that over and over for years.
Unfortunately, I was so overwhelmed trying to get a grip on his medical issues (they didn't figure out his diagnosis until age 10) that I didn't have the capacity to take on the academics and move him into a more appropriate setting. I did finally move him for 6th grade into a private school (with scholarships) which was what he needed. I do think that if I had moved him into a more progressive school (public or private) earlier he would be in much better shape today.

As with all early influences, school can certainly have a profound effect and it has the potential to damage your mental health if your experiences are poor.

I think education can and, ideally should, have two functions.

First of all, it should teach you things that will be useful tools for functioning in, and contributing to, the adult world. ( I think this was the original purpose of mass education.)

Secondly, it could and should provide a joy of learning for its own sake.

My own experience was that primary and secondary school did the first, with the added bonus that I left at the end with a bunch of certificates that described my ability and attainment in a way that differentiated me.

University was more about the latter. I studied pure maths, but even though I essentially worked as a mathematician afterwards, I don't think I used much maths that I didn't know before I did the Scottish Highers. What university did provide was a joy of learning. It was as though my brain was a muscle and it was being given a workout.

I hope universities are still like that, but I suspect they may be more degree factory like now, due to the large numbers who go there now (and so, by definition, the necessary lowering of entrance standards) and the cost of being there that means the student becomes a consumer entering into an economic transaction.

multivac, I used "ruin" as in damage, is it not right?( I am not 100% sure since English isn't my first language.)
He already feels like he is being ignored at school for maths. Even though he is part of the class he is never picked when he raise his hands to answer, so all the children getting house points for right answer, he doesn't. He is learning nothing new. He is told to help other children, which he doesn't enjoy. He is given work which is complete repetition with bigger numbers compared to others. He get on with it. He once made a depressing comment about it to me, especially for house points.
He is all-rounder at the moment, but I doubt it will be in the future, because I don't see passion for other subjects other than maths. He clearly says he loves maths, he wants to be a Mathematician, so if his needs aren't met, well I don't know what happens. Does he get depressed? Does he go back into his shell again like he used to(selective mute)?
And I don't see you actually care about individual children's education at all.

Can I just say (for new readers) that my child, although not, obviously, an extreme right side of the bell curve type, is a definite outlier in his school. He is in year 10, and shows no sign of having had his life ruined. Yes, he has been bored sometimes, and frustrated sometimes and his education has not always perfectly met his needs. But he is well on track academically, he enjoys the social side of school, and is fine. And he has learned a lot of useful things apart from the pure academics. So please don't panic. And can I also gently suggest to the people whose kids have a "spiky" profile (there are always a lot of mathematicians on threads like this) that there are only so many Maths lessons a week- maybe focus on other subjects for a while? The Maths talent will not go away, but being a rounded individual who is interested in everything is much more important in the long run than whether you get your Maths GCSE in year 8 or 11.

Bertrand - how extremely condescending to extrapolate from your own DS' situation that truly gifted DC will be all right in a mixed ability school.

If you understood the tiniest thing about IQ, statistics, bell curves etc you would be a bit more sensitive. Because you are sensitive to the plight of others. However, you don't have the knowledge to grasp the predicament of gifted DCs in mixed ability situations.

I was trying to be reassuring to some very worried year 7 parents. Take it as condescension if you want to.

I was panicky when I felt my ds was going to a wildly inappropriate school, too.

Maybe you were panicky but your DS, from everything you write about him, lies around one standard deviation to the right of the mean (which is, very roughly, the cut off point for the Kent test). That's incredibly different to a DC lying two, three, four or five standard deviations from the mean.

I have child with a spikey profile who went through y7-11 in a mixed ability school.

She was extremely happy and well served.

So schools can make it work. That said it was bloody expensive (so lots of resources and the will was there. I can't think of a SLT decision that adversely impacted upon the highly able.

DC with spiky profiles can be poorly served by highly selective schools which aren't equipped to deal with any weaknesses. Highly resourced private schools with the ability to differentiate provision across all disciplines will be an ideal solution, for those whose parents can find and pay for such a school. Obviously, in the English/A-level system, spiky profiles are less of an issue at 16-18 than in most other, broader, systems.

"Maybe you were panicky but your DS, from everything you write about him, lies around one standard deviation to the right of the mean (which is, very roughly, the cut off point for the Kent test). That's incredibly different to a DC lying two, three, four or five standard deviations from the mean."

How clever of you to have worked all that out from what I post!

You're wrong, actually. Otherwise he would have an academic peer group in all subjects at school and I would have had absolutely no reason to panic even mildly at the thought of him going to his school. But, as I said, of course our experience does not exactly mirror other people's. I was trying to be constructive. Read it as condescension if you like.

irvine I don't know which country you are coming from but ime, it's extremel hard to adjust to a new system when one of your dc has some Special Need (and I put a child with high and very high abilities in that category) when the system looks completely crazy to you. Because you've seen other systems working better for a child like yours. The way thing are done isn't the obvious way (I'm talking about core principles about what education is about not methoids used)

I think it makes things harder to accept and work with.

I have gone through very similar feeling than you. I have thought about private, knew it's too expensive for us (and also wondered if it was the best idea anyway. Just have a look at the thread public/private on here. Not having the experience of either of them makes it even harder to see what would be best). I'm still wondering about that now that dc1 is in Y7. My best bet atm (and something we should be able to afford) is to look at private for Alevels unless its clear dc1 experience in state school has a huge detrimental effect on him.

But YY to the fact that all schools are different and that it is totally possible to have an OK ish experience in state school. But I think it is impoprtant to stop focusing on the areas where the child is really good at and put the emphasis on the rest. Not because their area of expertise is not important but because all the rest is ALSO very important. That and being very careful of not telling the child, even if indirectely, that what is doing at school is not right. I'm talking about facial experessions, discussions with your DP about how the schools are supposed to be supporting children etc... I have realised a few months ago that I was encouraging dc1 to think his experience/school was rubbish and therefore he was right in feeling so desillusioned. It certainly didn't help iyswim. (I'm going back to the fact that having experience as system that would have been VERY good for dc1 even if you can argue it's not a good system as a whole, it's hard to stay neutral to his comments aboout his books/exercises not been looked at and corrected since November for example).

In Kent, where an awful lot of DC who fail the Kent test by a small margin (or who were borderline and parents didn't put them in for the 11+) are sent to private secondaries, there is a real issue of there not being a peer group for borderline DC at the comprehensives. I don't know where your DS goes to school but at eg Mascall's this is a serious concern.

Another thought promted by bert about the fact that their abilities will always be there in 5 years time.

Are abilities in maths. literature or language something that will always be there or is the fact that if you don't use these abilities for a while then they sort of 'shrink'?

If you look at music, a child with musical abilities will need to train for a very yooung age to have the chance of being at the very top. Not playing at the right level throughout teenagehood would mean loosing the opportunity to become 'the best'. Same with a child with athletic abilities. Eg my niece has some clear abilities in swimming. her thing is long distances. She knows that she has to be 'the best' around 16yo (All the winners in long distance swimming are about 16~18yo. After that, they have to go back to shorter distances to have a chance of wimming).
We would never think that it's OK for these children not to get the right training/support as a child/teenager because we know that, if they don't train at that age, they won't be getting to the top level.

But what bout other abilities like maths or science or litterature? Is it possible that, by not supporting our children, we are lessening their potential as adults, or actually, like Bert was saying, it doesn't quite matter?