That glass ceiling! Part 2

[var123]

Continuing the discussion about artificial limits placed on G&T children, and the resulting impact on their health and happiness (not to mention futures).

Do they really matter less because they have a perceived "advantage"?!

original thread here:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/gifted_and_talented/2507232-The-glass-ceiling-for-very-able-children?

I think highly selective universities are right to recognize that the goal of their selection process is not perfection. The French prepa system makes prospective grandes écoles students spend two or even three years preparing for a highly competitive entrance examination process that sorts and ranks ruthlessly. What it gains in precision in selection is, IMO, lost in economic inefficiency and poor development of youth.

What are the characteristics of the "right applicant"?

I guess some are obvious:
intelligent enough to be able to learn the material
hardworking enough to apply themselves
resilient enough to stay to the end
know enough already to be able to understand the new material

but then there are others that may or may not apply:
will benefit from the learning
will benefit from the environment
can afford it

What do you do though when you see a candidate who goes to a school where most subsequently train as hairdressers etc and who has done relatively well, compared to their peers but not compared to the students who have been educated in a different, more educationally-fertile environment? Do you give greater weight to the student from the difficult backgrounds achievements or not?

pupils who attend grammar schools appear to achieve between zero and three-quarters of a GCSE grade per subject more than ‘similar’ pupils in other schools.

Yes, and they don't know why. The education datalab behind progress 8 have admitted that this means you can't use the measure to compare school effectiveness, as the reason the grammar kids do better might have more to do with the type of child who got in than the school.

We do know that FSM levels are very low in grammars and the intakes are usually from pretty well-off backgrounds. This could be a factor.

They adjust for that (FSM & MC) in the study, they say.

Could it be better teaching or even that the students who are encouraged at home to take school seriously and regard the work as obligatory, and possibly even enjoyable, tend to be the ones who sit the 11+ in the first place?

Frankly, even if I was thinking about this from purely a selfish point of view, I would want to see a bloody sight more difference in attainment than "zero to three quarters of a grade" before I thought grammar schools were a good idea!

Do those figures include the super selectives?

We know that selective education systems perpetuate social inequality as the kids who get in tend to be kids of educated parents who do all the right things to ensure their kids get into a selective school, yes.

Of course a school filled with kids of supportive parents will naturally do better than a different school with parents who don't care about education. Perhaps selective schools are selecting parents rather than students.

zero and three-quarters of a GCSE grade per subject

I think you have a point, var- there will not be any children, of whatever ability, in a grammar school whose parents didn't actively choose for them to be there. And any school which parents have to actively choose does better than one where they don't. Oversubscribed faith schools are a good example of this.

noblegiraffe maybe even they are aiming for the intersection: DC who are both able and supported at home?
I know (from certain families I can think of) that just because a parent can afford a fee and is willing to pay it, doesn't imply that the parent cares.

Its funny about the faith schools. Here in England, they are a big deal. In Scotland, where there are a lot of faith schools, no one cares and the church you go to on Sunday makes no difference to the exam results age 15/16.

If DC are able and supported at home, putting them in a class with DC who are neither reduces the performance of the former group without improving the performance of the latter group. This is, according to some people, a fairer system than a selective system.

DC who are both able and supported at home?

Well that at least would be honest. 'We want kids who will make life as easy for us as possible, then bask in their reflected glory when all the top results come in'

Screw the able kids from problem families, we're not a meritocracy.

I've got able (really able, top of CATs scale) kids in my top set, Bobo with bloody awful homelives. Are they going to be dragging down the nice middle class kids?

var - until 1975, faith schools in France underperformed relative to selective state schools (equivalent of grammar schools).

In 1975 selective state middle school was abolished and all DC henceforth followed a grammar school curricukum.

Fast forward 40 years and faith schools wildly outperform state schools.

I don't think the fee payign schools are a meritocracy, apart from the bursary places which slightly level the playing field, but only slightly. They aren't pretending to be a meritocracy.

However, if you are talking of merits, then clearly having unsupportive parents or a chaotic home-life is a handicap to succeeding in education. Ditto not being all that able in the first place. Neither are the child's fault but that doesn't change the reality.

Selfish, uncaring parents annoy the life out of me (can you tell?!)

Just to clarify - my son's school selects at 7,8 and 11 - not at 4. I am not exaggerating about the 2 grade 8s in year 5. The school concerts which are held once a term are astounding in terms of quality of performances.

"Its funny about the faith schools. Here in England, they are a big deal. In Scotland, where there are a lot of faith schools, no one cares and the church you go to on Sunday makes no difference to the exam results age 15/16."

Faith schools only make a difference when they are oversubscribed. It's the selectiveness, not the faith that makes the difference.

I have known 2 primary school grade 8s. It happens.

But it is vanishingly rare.

I agree that it is rare, but this thread is about that rare breed of child who is truly gifted and talented and how to ensure that they are best developed. The key complaint has been that their needs are being made secondary to the perceived greater need for the lower end to maximise their potential. In a school like my sons, these children will blend - something which I was looking for for my son.

Faith schools only make a difference when they are oversubscribed. It's the selectiveness, not the faith that makes the difference.

I understand, ad agree. I just can't imagine how it came about in the first place. Its like people suddenly deciding that schools where the HT's office window faces north are more desirable. Why pick on religion? Its irrelevant to maths, english, geography, science etc., etc. Most people don't even go to church, so its not even about the discipline.

The very ruthless selection system of the prepas has one very big issue. It will eliminate students who very able but crumble under pressure AND it also create a system where working under pressure is the norm (as in normality therefore everyone is expected to work that way).
It has consequences all the way in the work attitude etc...

Having gone through that system, I'm not sure it has an effect on the 'development of the youh'. Its only 2 years after all. Once in the engineering school/busibness school, said students have plenty of time and opportunities to develop much more rounded personalities.

You do get to select 'the best'. It shows in the attitude to work (having worked both in the UK and in France). But it doesn't always mean that it will produce 'better' people (on a work pov of course) on medium/long term pov.

In a school like my sons, these children will blend - something which I was looking for for my son.

This, for me, is the single most compelling argument for selective education. Yes I would like to see DD challenged and to learn to work rather than coasting, but most of all I want her to be among a peer group so that she doesn't feel like a geek and a freak. I know she'll get that at university, but I would far rather she got there sooner.

If there are national athletes who compete internationally, schools are full of grades 7-8 in both instrument from year 5 then it is a very very special school. I will do my research tonight.

To be honest, I am in between, I dont want to be a tiger mom, I want my daughter walking home from school everyday at 3.30. Have plenty of play time with her friends or her sister after, only playing silly things, arty, messy. Then could sit down for her piano when she feels she likes it, or play on ger violin. Then evening is full of catch up for me with dinner then bed. I am only hoping all studying should be done at school in primary. Might be some little more for 11+ later but not like I have to teach my child and give her work for her to be happy that she is being challenged.

Grade 7-8 in music at 10 for 2 instruments means the child has to start working 1-2 or even mote hours aday from 5 years old and if any school is full of these kids then how do they find time to learn other things, to play or just to not doing anything and being silly as they are not even 10 yrs old yet.

I came from Asia and born in the capital and there isnt much green/park around me. Everyone around me is always very busy, competitive and work hard. Too hard, kids tutor from 5 yrs old for foreign languages, music, all school subject. They are well trained from young age and they are all the same-excellent. I am in between. I dont want my child to have my childhood however she is very bright, I should help her or make sure she has enough help so could reach to to her standard aim for excellence and love learning, being stretched

There are grade 8s at DS school as well.

It is indeed very rare but less so in the London superselectives because they a) specifically target the musically talented by offering music scholarships and b) attracti an intake that is made up of children who are naturally bright to start with but have also in many cases been tutored to within an ibhv of their lives as well by parents paranoid about how competitive entry is.

Urgh, inch not ibhv!