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 can see that an underclass is bad for society and the sense of being trapped in an underclass is even more dangerous. Maybe only a small % will actually have the luck, drive and ability to escape, but its the sense that it is possible that provides hope.

So, that makes sense. Thank you!

var love the analogy. With mastery being telling the Porsche driver to pull over, put the handbrake on and practice changing gear for an hour.

If ignoring the most able children from financially stable and supportive homes was done to only benefit the least able from below the breadline unstable homes, and it actually had any long term positive impact in breaking the poverty trap, then I would accept it as worth it and fair.

It doesn't work like that though. The most able, regardless of whether they have anything else to their advantage are expected to take a back seat for middle and low achievers from any background. It's not a justifiable trade off.

It doesn't and won't help the poverty trap either. If every school in the country suddenly achieves 99.9% passes at gcse and at 18 a-levels or a useful vocational qualification, it won't make any odds to the lowest in society. Because somebody needs to do all the poverty trap unqualified, zero hour nmw jobs our society views as essential. Somebody needs to live in the inner city sink estates. Somebody will still need to have disabilities or mental illness. Our society wouldn't function without such a large group in the poverty trap. And if we want a society that can function without the lowest sector living below the breadline, then making it possible for the most able from unstable or poorer homes to achieve their potential is the only way.

And to be brutally honest, no matter how good our education system or society is for low achievers, some children won't ever break out of the poverty trap. And instead of recognising that, all we do is say little chavy Jack isn't too bright, parents are useless, but it makes us feel all warm and cosy inside by saying we're ignoring the most able to even it up. And to ice the cake, we'll make sure little chavy jo from an equally poor and uncaring home but with high ability has no damn chance of escaping the trap either.

"And instead of recognising that, all we do is say little chavy Jack isn't too bright, parents are useless, but it makes us feel all warm and cosy inside by saying we're ignoring the most able to even it up"

Well, if that makes us feel all warm and cosy then we have a pretty fucking screwed value system.

That's pushing it a bit. Peter's actual experience of being let down so that Paul can have his share is likely to be the opposite of what anyone might reasonably call "enriching". Also, being grateful because there are others worse off than you is a bit of a stretch for a child. Pollyanna could probably do it, but she was so exceptional that they wrote a book about her.

The thing is that I don't think anyone is denying that it's crap. That things should be better. That there isn't enough time and money to go round.

But when hard choices have to be made, it's those most able to bear the brunt who have to lose out. If there is a choice between one child getting an A* instead of an A and another getting a C instead of a D I know where I want the resources to go.

Its impossible to end child poverty because, by definition poverty in the UK is a relative thing: it is those with the lowest income. We could all - every family in the UK - be multi-millionaires and there'd still be children who are defined as living below the poverty line.

If you raise state pensions, then you automatically shift some pensioners out of the definition of poverty and other families drop into it as a direct result.

In the third world poverty is defined by an absolute measure - having less than $1.90 per day.

(DS2 had to do a presentation about this last year at school - hence this odd bit of knowledge).

But BetrandRussell, why would you want a poor, but very able, child to get an A so that another child could get his C?

All that achieves is to stop the exam system adequately differentiating between different levels of ability. Why would that be a good thing? What would be the point of doing that?

"But BetrandRussell, why would you want a poor, but very able, child to get an A so that another child could get his C?"

If that is the trade off, then yes. There are very few doors that can be opened by an A* that cannot be equally opened by an A. The same cannot be said about a C and a D.

Interestingly, next year, for one year only, it will definitely be in the best interests of the school to move an A to an A* rather than a G to an F, for example. Because of the blip with the old and new GCSE crossover. If your DS's school is progress 8 savvy BertrandRussell, they'll be focusing on your DS...

"But I'm not arguing in favour of poorly taught mixed ability classes."

^^Nobody is but they seem to be reality for many. I agree pupil premium, breakfast clubs, TA support etc should be for those with greatest need. But even if you say my perception is skewed by my child's experience, does anybody suggest mixed ability classes are the best option for at least 50% of children? IMO the car analogy is reasonable.

But why are the most academically able automatically assumed to be the ones most able to bear the brunt? Why is it just that advantage that needs to be given up?

Why should chavy jo who's parents won't help and who lives in poverty miss out on his potential, so middleclass jo can reach his potential and make his involved parents proud of his c?

I think mixed ability classes - and fully individualised teaching - is the best option for pretty much all students. Plenty of access to one-to-one tuition. No limits set upon aspiration.

And if one school - fully comprehensive, non-sponsored academy - can manage it on a budget that's squeezed as much as any other (and certainly doesn't benefit from London funding), then I don't see why others couldn't.

I can't run with the car analogy, because I don't believe that children's brains come in three or four different models (and nor, as I understand it, is this idea supported by current neuroscience research). I also don't see education as a linear process.

It will be interesting to see if I feel the same in five years' time.

I see the 'poverty trap' mentioned. I find that a very relative misleading term. My DS has noticed that his friends from 'poor' families get very expensive presents at Xmas (we certainly cant afford what unemployed families can).

Native Britians dont want to do the unqualified, zero hour nmw jobs our society views as essential, we import immigrants to do those. The poverty trap is more like a gilded cage living on benefits because working wont keep them in the lifestyle they have been accustomed to.

And why instead of the poor but able child sacrificing their a* for an a, why can't the financially stable kids sacrifice their b to a c to allow others to get a c too? Or indeed their disposable income as extra pp to allow others to gain that c?

Let's be generous with all possible life advantages.

"The poverty trap is more like a gilded cage living on benefits because working wont keep them in the lifestyle they have been accustomed to."

Ah. I see.

No one need 'sacrifice' anything, least of all utterly pointless GCSE grades.

multivac - cars don't come in only three models either. It was just a grouping to reflect the way that schools subdivide and to save me looking up hundreds of models of cars!

• top group (top 15%, sometimes top 25% which is obviously a very long tail)
• middle groups ( middle 70% approx) They call everyone in this group "average" but the ones who are not at the bottom of this middle group are sometimes referred to as "above average" which just adds to the deliberate confusion.
• bottom group (least able 15%)

I'm not sure it's actually possible to target groups for underachievement in the rather precise ways suggested here

Truth is, schools are judged on progress now, for every student (well, every student with KS2 data). So DS, no genius, but KS2 level 6, pretty much has to get A*s (and 8s in the new money) just for the school to break even on him. Nobody will be sacrificing him, and it is usually easier, IME, to nudge over the line at the top end rather than the bottom.

Lurkedforever1 - I get the impression that these extravagant xmas presents are often provided through crippling levels of debt. The parents cannot afford them but even today - post 2008 - people will put themselves into almost unmanageable levels of debt just to give their children a good Christmas.

Bless, you, var. I did understand that. And my point still stands.

multivac - but the thing is there are sacrifices made every single day.

e.g. When the regular class teacher gets pulled away from her year regular 7/8/9 class for a month or so in order to allow her to provide extra support for the GCSE students who are at risk of not getting a C, that's a robbing Peter to pay Paul type sacrifice right there (and that sort of thing happens a lot IME).

Yes. Not sure how many more different ways I can explain that I am not describing something that is largely happening at the moment.

Just saying "I don't see education as a linear process" isn't enough. You don't agree, but you need to explain why or else you are only offering "I don't agree".

it is pretty unusual to put cover on KS3 classes to simply intervene with a group of year 11s. Cover the year 11 class of an absent teacher certainly, but any year 11 class would have priority...

bolognese I find your stereotype massively offensive. And just hope your ds has the ability to realise how ignorant your opinion is. Very simple maths to realise zero hour nmw gives a guarantee of zero income. Do you read other papers or just the mail?