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.

But what does "gifted" mean ? Top 10% or 5% or 1% ? It also depends on the cohort. My sons verbal IQ is 125-130 this places him in the top 5% of the population assuming a normal distribution. In his village primary he was gifted (only 20 in the year group) at his super selective grammar he is average.

Stillwish - that's why we need rigorous streaming so the cohorts in the ability range can move at different speeds. It would remove the 'who is G&T' debate. It would just be who is in set 1 and who is in sets 2, 3, 4, 5, etc. There would be no concept of average ability.

@multivac, "You have your confirmation bias, pique"

Not really. I'm much more on the science side of the fence than anywhere else and would describe myself as a truth-seeker.

@Stillwishihadabs, But what does "gifted" mean ?

My child's level and upwards.

I'm sometimes alone in this, but I think the nature of local pond does matter because being an outlier is enough to make you difficult for a school regardless of how bright you are in more global terms. I imagine (don't know) your son is better off being average there than idling at the top in a comp class. What's your view on that?

Personally I wouldn't use top 10, 5 or 1% to measure it.

A high achiever is usually one who does everything required, learns everything needed maybe competes to be in the top 5% by working harder, gets lucky by having graduate parents, so gets a head start etc.

A gifted child learns for personal pleasure, knows most things before they are taught it in school, they dont see levels as a measure of ability because they are just irrelevant, instead of watching football or the Simpsons they watch documentaries on science. Instead of getting them to do homework you have to force them to stop doing homework. They correct teachers when they make mistakes, get accused of cheating for knowing 'impossible' answers. They get told off for reading harder text books under the table because what they are learning is so simple. Tests are looked forward to, you can never find enough stuff to stimulate their mind. They learn like a sponge, like its a gift.

@ABetaDad1: " that's why we need rigorous streaming so the cohorts in the ability range can move at different speeds."

I'm against 'streaming' which strictly speaking means the child is in the same sets for everything academic, but definitely for per-subject setting. Sets are better for what I call 'spiky-skilled' children who are extremely good at X, but not Y. Conventional school selection with 11+ etc. is just like streaming and clearly not good for them.

Sets are definitely MUCH better than mixed-ability, but the curve is essentially exponential decay at the top so in e.g. DD’s maths top set there is still quite a big difference between the top of the class and the bottom. Plus the average child in the class is closer to that bottom end, not somewhere in the middle.

@Bolognese, ”A gifted child….”

::sob:: You’ve just disqualified DD. Can I whistle up a definition based on her and disqualify yours?

I recognise all that Bolgnese and could add another phase that's beginning to appear now that the boys are age 12 and 13. They begin to look around and realise that their ability to learn makes them appear different and then they start trying to work out how to hide it from their classmates. Being interested in the natural world, or history, or physical geography, or politics becomes something to read about in secret but hide from the world.

Let's be honest, the argument against setting is that it's deemed best for middle and lower achievers to be taught with higher achievers. Basically that holding back the minority benefits the majority. And my opinion on how unfair that is won't ever change. No other advantages a child may have are deemed worth sacrificing to the greater good, so why should ability be?

As pique says I think a lot of what causes problems for gifted children is whether they're an outlier in their cohort or not.

I'm also not convinced you can define it as a %. But I also don't think bologneses definition is always fully applicable to every gifted child either.

So, (almost) everyone concludes that the education system is not meant to suit the most able children. I fell for the "every child counts" type stuff at first, but quickly learned that :-
a) every child counts is a policy specifically designed to take care of the least able.
b) the system is really not set up to care about the most able, and nobody is trying to address that.
c) some parents of very able children like it that way because they value social cohesion over education (I hope that's a fair way to describe it)

I know nothing will change for my children. However, hypothetically speaking what could be done to help children who want, and possibly need, to be stimulated and whose parents would be willing send them to a completely different school which is significantly further away, if that's what it took?

Could there be scope (say) to create a grammar school within comprehensives? Somewhere that the best teachers don't get pulled away to teach the lower sets and the national curriculum is seen as only a starting point for learning, not the entire experience?

Would this cause such jealousy and angst among the parents whose children aren't in these classes that politically it would never be permitted?

var123, I had that one to, lol Any homework that class mates will see, eg stuff that's going to be put up on walls has to be dumbed down because other pupils won't understand the words he used and tease him. Funny and sad at the same time. We had to find several other tactics to hide his ability's, like putting the real book he is reading inside a more socially acceptable one. In Y9 now its a bit easier as he does a lot of stuff with Y10 doing GCSE's who value learning more.

PiqueABoo: Its not all plain sailing, I am stretched to my intellectual limit trying to keep up. Thankfully Wikipedia helps me a lot +

Lurkedforever1: I didn't mean my definition to be a catch all, just wanted to illustrate the difference with a studious high achiever, who works hard then goes out a kick a football around or just hang out at the park and someone who is gifted with the desire to learn everything.

I could see an argument for super selectives. As it would be such a small % being educated separately, the usual arguments against selective education wouldn't apply as there'd still be an able cohort in comprehensives. And hot housing a child into a place would be a lot harder than the usual 11+. Can't actually see any logical argument against it.

However I don't see it happening. You only need to look at some of the posts when someone asks for advice on a gifted/ able child to see it inspires misunderstanding and/or cattiness, and the general incorrect assumption able kids don't need/ deserve much educationally as 'they'll still get good grades'. I also think if entrance was done in a way that socio-economic background didn't bias it, there would be an even greater objection. I don't see Cameron and his ilk welcoming a load of well educated adults into power, who also grew up on sink estates with parents on benefits, it would upset the status quo. I also think the middle class parents of Johnny whose needs are met by his top set in his nice comprehensive would object to kids like mine, who socially should be at the local sink school, or even alongside Johnny being marked out for something their catchment house price couldn't buy. And there's also a group who'd object because they just can't understand the current system doesn't cater for the most able. The group who say primaries can teach level 6, therefore the able can be taught. And often go on at length about mastery without ever realising their idea of mastery and broadening translates as pointless repitition

Yes var123 you have hit the nail on the head.

The solution is new genuinely academically selective state schools set up by parents, but we aren't allowed to so, therefore nothing will change as a majority of the country wont vote for it A combination of envy and privilege. Private schools don't fill the gap, as while they might advantage high attainers they dont provide for gifted children either.

I would have home schooled if it was possible at all, its not. So we keep plodding along as best we can. Don't see any other countries doing much better though.

Bolognese I agree with your definition of gifted because it fits my child

Lurkedforever1, again agree with most of what you said apart from the political bias. Gifted children (I have met quite a few over the years) have no interest in power/politics, they want to be scientists, historians, engineers, philosophers etc.

It must be possible to have a small number of super selective schools that even hot housed, wealthy tutored pupils wouldn't stand a chance of getting into. I do despair that our country wastes the talent of its genuinely gifted children.

bolognese I'm not sure either of us could know whether gifted children would go into politics, only a small % of people do anyway. However I do believe there are gifted children who also have sufficient personal reasons to want social change, regardless of their gift leading in other directions. And unfortunately the ones with the most personal motivation are usually at schools where it's unlikely that potential will be realised, and highly likely any love of learning or ambition will be killed off. I didn't just mean politics though, any role with influence would be the same, whether you say Cameron worried about a rival who grew up under the breadline, or the mid management level employee objecting to the fact the bosses golden girl/ boy grew up on the estate they see as beneath them. But whether you're correct or not, I think just the fear it might happen would put people off.

ok fair point but I still think you have an unfounded political chip on your shoulder.

I've come across it too. DS1 was allowed to go up to do Maths with children 2 or 3 years older in his primary school because they did maths at the same time. Great. But once those children moved on, he has just repeated the same things every year. At least his teacher this year has said he is happy for me to send stuff in for DS to get on with on his own. They haven't really stretched him in other areas either. I'm hoping that due to streaming secondary school will be slightly less soul-destroyingly boring for him.

bolognese not really, my job makes me hate a lot of politics and treatment of the most vulnerable, and to a lesser extent the area I live in. I just massively dislike all the hypocrisy of the loudest middle classes offering the bounty of mediocrity to the lowest achievers, at the cost of the higher achievers from less wealthy or educated backgrounds. As though that will actually make any positive social change in the scheme of things.

SugarMiceInTheRain: your lucky you were allowed to send in your own material, why are such simple free things so hard for teachers!

Lurkedforever1: I agree with your comment about the treatment of vulnerable people, but I disagree with where you lay the blame. Its not the governments fault, its the will of the people, its human nature, its what the country choose's time and time again.

"Let's be honest, the argument against setting is that it's deemed best for middle and lower achievers to be taught with higher achievers. Basically that holding back the minority benefits the majority."

That's not my argument. My argument is that the slight benefit (and we are talking basic outcomes here, which are largely irrelevant anyway in terms of the cohort on this thread, who are by definition off the upper end of the scale as measured by statutory exams) of setting for high achieving pupils is a) not significant enough to outweigh the negative effects on children labelled 'low achieving' b) could be regained, and then some, by an improvement in teaching methods generally, as well as a change in social attitude towards education - its practice and purpose. I don't want any child 'held back', and I'm as selfish as the next parent when it comes to getting the best for my children. I'm not sending them to a non-selective, non-setting, non-streaming school (despite being in an area served by excellent grammars) by way of some ideological gesture.

The system does not cater equally well for every child as it stands. That's clear. And exceptionally able students are by no means the only group ill served by it. The fact that this conversation has now shifted to dreams of super-selective schools where no one need worry about what the system is doing to other people's children, including the ones who are merely 'very able', simply demonstrates what happens when one argues in an echo chamber.

labelled 'low achieving', and b)

where no one need worry about what the system is doing to other people's children

In our hypothetical discussion, we are not considering the needs of the 90% or 95% or 99% of other children, its true although I would argue that their outcomes would be unaffected. However, the current system gives zero consideration to the needs of our kids, and what's worse is that is the real situation, not some imaginary would'nt-it-be-nice dream.

By your reply, it seems that you think we shouldn't even dream of having our children's needs - educational and often psychological - met in some way but rather embrace the reality of seeing our children's needs ignored in favour of other people's children.

I don't know where you got that idea of 'what I think'; but it certainly wasn't 'by [my] reply'.

Actually, it was from your reply.

multi I for one don't have concerns over whether dds end grade will be less for mixed ability teaching. What does concern me is the mental effect of years of boredom, which can put a child off learning, and leaves them with no experience of having to try academically. Not to mention if subjects aren't even available, it's impossible to get any grade in them.

Again, why is the advantage of ability the only advantage that should be sacrificed to some communist type education system?

bolognese won't hijack the thread to debate politics but I think divide and conquer plays a huge role, or at least has in my lifetime.

Then you are reading what you want or expect me to think, I guess. Because that's not what I wrote. I am arguing for wholesale change, which, in my opinion, would benefit all children. Unlike you, I don't see a solution which would leave the outcomes of all young people other than the exceptionally able 'unaffected', as a positive one.