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?

Bertrand, I don't mind my ds helping other children occasionally, especially they are working together.
But if he is assigned to help a table because he already know what they are doing , I'm not happy about it. It's not good for other children as well, he says they just wants to know the answer.

I think I do understand and agree with disqui and noble's points on deeper and better understanding in maths. In my very first week at university, I remember my lecturers making exactly that point. They gave a tutorial to us (all able and the equivalent of A* maths students) and told us it could be solved using only the maths we had been taught in high school. Only 2 out of 30 managed, 1 because he was genuinely a 1 in whatever exceptional student and 1 who was both very able and had been taught in a different way at school.

My DSSs, who were both educated entirely in the French system before going to read Economics at English universities, both worked out pretty quickly that their fellow university students had got through their maths/FM A-levels by endless repetition and rehearsal of questions that were bound to come up on the examination. Whereas French bac maths works in a completely different way: the exam throws up problems that students haven't seen before. There's a lot of head scratching in the last couple of years of French maths at school and, even at Y7 level, the children expect to encounter difficult questions on tests.

Then why are these students all getting A*?

I would like to understand how this system works. How can you say at the same time, this child needs to do some deeper work and get a much better understanding on xx subject (therefore he/she shouldn't be moving on to the next level) and then have 99% of students taught to get an A* at alevel and only that (which is known NOT to give the deep understanding that students need as per experience at Uni)??

The more it goes, the more it feels like a cop out to avoid teaching at the level of the child.
Either there is a need of a deeper teaching/better handle of the students and then they should be taught that (and not move on to the stuff at level 7 or 8, bright or not). And the marks should reflect that too.

Because basically, what you are all saying is that the way maths is taught isn't good enough for Uni.
That children need a deeper understanding.
Understanding that none of them are getting ... because they don't need to get it to get top marks at Alevel.

Of course they do. Because the ability to think and put together a good reasonning is just as important than the knowledge of a few facts.

Which then gives another question. Is the school as it is ever teaching the children to think and reason?

WoodHeaven - in order to deliver the mass examinations that are GCSEs and A-levels cheaply and efficiently and to make marking reliable, the syllabus and exams have been greatly simplified. And complex reasoning gets lost...

Talk to an English person and the system is entirely oriented towards thinking and reasoning. I remain to be convinced.

Irvine, teacher: please could you remind me the maths website you mentioned teacher2kid gave us in thread1. Thank you

WoodHeaven

Also because only a tiny minority will be doing maths at university so the system is not designed for this. Also for the average student getting a B or C at GCSE level is perhaps hard enough on the current system. I don't yet have experience of this with my DC, but I am told there is quite a jump between the GCSE maths requirements and those for A level, possibly because by A level the course is being designed only for those who have some genuine ability in the subject.

Hi!, Greenleave

mathshubs.org.uk/what-maths-hubs-are-doing/national-curriculum-assessment-materials/

BoboChic, "it's discriminatory to use pupils as teaching assistants."

12yo DD and another quirky girl will be jointly teaching a top set maths lesson next week. That might help a little with "pretending to be an extrovert", but it won't do anything for her maths.

"Talk to an English person and the system is entirely oriented towards thinking and reasoning"

Stop talking to progressives, many of whom seem remarkably inept at the 'critical thinking' skills they claim to nurture.

This is changing a little now e.g. one of DD's weekly maths lessons is dedicated to what I call recreational maths and it is genuinely 'thinky', as opposed to behaviourist exam passing stuff.

So the curriculum is simplified. That's OK. But why should the bright students then expected to do the 'deeper understanding' that no one else is doing?
And how is the teacher and the student going to follow progress and learning if this is not in the curriculum?

What I am against is this idea that it's OK and even desirable to hold brighter children so that they can 'deepend' their understanding but have no way to evaluate that. It's not good for the child who has no idea how well they are doing, if they are progressing etc... It's not good for the teacher that has no way to follow progress. And it allows the not as good teachers to hide behind this idea to do not a lot with the bright kids.

If I take dc1, you will struggle to make him undertand he has to do more work because he doesn't know everything when he already has demonstrated he does by getting 98%. If you want to show and entice students to work an progress, they need to see they have some way to progress before saying they know it all... A 98% mark doesn't say that.

Bobo if the system was geared towards reasoning rather than passing exams, none of the students arriving at Uni would have the issues described.

bobo I'm English, and I agree with you. The nc can be learnt parrot fashion if you have reasonable ability and either good memory or a good work ethic. And I think that's where the problem with the most able children comes in. They don't learn it parrot fashion, it's an exercise in reasoning/ logic.

But why should the bright students then expected to do the 'deeper understanding' that no one else is doing?

The bright students should be doing something that the other students aren't doing, shouldn't they?

In English you would certainly expect them to have a deeper understanding of texts read than other students.

If you want to see what 'deeper understanding' looks like in maths, the Further Maths GCSE is pretty good. It has a lot of questions of the 'Miss, you never taught us that' type, where you actually need to figure out what to do.

Having to figure out what to do themselves is actually a big problem in maths. Kids see a 5 mark question that they don't know how to start and just skip it. We even see it as an issue at A-level. In the statistics module, what you need to to is given to you 'Calculate the equation of the regression line....'. In mechanics, its 'Here's a scenario, calculate the force at which the object hits the ground'. Guess which they struggle more with?

noblegiraffe "Modern textbooks are crap. Seriously."

The couple I've looked at bear a striking resemblence to comic books. We've largely kept clear of school-side stuff, but at some point I intend to throw a 60 year-old edition of the Victorian 'Elementary Algebra'(Hall & Knight) at DD. She loved Sherlock so I think she'll enjoy the quite formal language and phrases like "Shew that" etc.

For now she has The Moscow Puzzles which contains many delights including this: ”Komsomol youths have built a small hydroelectric powerhouse. Preparing for its opening, young Communist boys and girls are decorating the powerhouse on all four sides with garlands, electric bulbs, and small flags...”

My twins did their GCSEs at different schools and I saw first hand the different approaches.

DD's school was mixed ability. It concentrated on getting the girls excellent results ( and TBH the results are fabulous for mixed ability) but that comes at a price ; concentration on the curriculum and mark schemes.

DS school is SS. And they kinda view GCSEs as an irritant. Something that had to be done, but had little to do with the education on offer.

Now sometimes that later approach was a bit hairy! Whilst DD was concentrating on the Shakespeare play that would come up in the exam, DS was studying two more that would not - for the hell of it!

I think you could only take that tack if you had very able and motivated students across the board. Plus parents that bought into it as an ethos.

Whereas French bac maths works in a completely different way: the exam throws up problems that students haven't seen before. There's a lot of head scratching in the last couple of years of French maths at school and, even at Y7 level, the children expect to encounter difficult questions on tests.
This sounds fantastic although it makes me wonder why French bac applicants have the very low success rate for Oxbridge maths or science interviews that we keep hearing about. Surely they would be much better prepared for the sort of thinking required at interview and for STEP papers?

I remember my brother (very academic boys' private school) saying they did first year university science or maths in the sixth form once they finished the then A level syllabus. That works if the whole class is bright.

(AH I have the Moscow puzzles, not looked at it for years though.
Some of the modern textbooks are fun to read though with nice pictures and explanations and children can always look stuff up on line (my twins do all the time) if they want to know more or get a different view from the textbook or the teacher.)

"Bertrand - it's discriminatory to use pupils as teaching assistants."

You do seem to have a very strange idea about the meaning of the word "discriminatory".

At my DS's school, 98% get A*/A at GCSE - it is hardly a differentiating exam for them, but just something which needs to do - just like at Eric's. When results are lie this - it just tells me that these exams are pretty useless for very bright children.

like, not lie

sendsummer - I don't understand why French bac applicants don't do better but am beginning to suspect that their English, rather than their thinking skills, lets them down at interview.

Bertrand - I think you don't fully understand the concept of discrimination.

"When results are lie this - it just tells me that these exams are pretty useless for very bright children."

I suppose it depends what you mean by useless........