The Glass Ceiling - part 3

[WoodHeaven]

This is a continuation of the first two threads.
Please free to join us as we discussed challenges faced by our dcs (and how to kake the best of the giftiness)

Previous thread The glass celining - part 2

Yes, our primary did a lip service coaching for level 6 and it was all about getting a 6c not a 6a.
They also gave the clear message to children that getting a level 6 in reading comprehension would be near impossible (The message was that it had more to do with maturity than with learning).

The disparity between that and the children who are 'hot housed' (either by the school or by the parents) will give a big disparity in results.

but isn't that what I said disquisitiones right before the bit that you quoted?

When my children did SATS, level 6 wasn't differentiated in primary school- did they change that? Before abolishing to altogether! And surely the thing about level 6 reading being about maturity is true?

Mistigri I think processing speed is quite often lower when children are tested young. I've seen a couple of theories as to why this might be: either that they are not used to timed tests, or that writing speed affects the results, but whatever, it seems to be quite common.

Pique what did you think of Tim Dracup's reaction to the Policy Exchange piece. I thought he twisted what they were saying quite a lot to suit his own conclusions.

This is also quite interesting as it seems to be describing what a lot of people on here are experiencing.

When dc1 did his SATS last year, he was given an 'official' result of level 6 but the teacher gave us his exact result (something like 57 over 60) which then specified it was a level 6a.

But YY about the fact it officially comes all out as a level 6 which is why they didn't bother to push the children further.

L6 was still not differentiated last May.

Yes, what else can reading be about except maturity?

There is more than one kind of maturity though. There's the delivering thoughtful answers to the question and then there's the maturity that makes you respectful of what you are doing.
Ds2 was getting L6 reading regularly in the class. However, when he did the SATS, he didn't read the question and answered something significantly different. (Its a great example of his "that'll do" attitude, that we are working very hard to get rid of before it really starts to cost him.)

And DS2 had the exact same mark as Woodheaven's DC. Are they twins?

"But YY about the fact it officially comes all out as a level 6 which is why they didn't bother to push the children further"

Are you absolutely sure it was "didn't bother"?

The longer reading comprehension questions are very difficult for younger children. Often they only give an answer worth one point out of three.

I'm pretty sure Bet because they were taking a group of children out for some 'special level 6' lessons (both in maths and in SPAG) right towards May.
So they had a couple of months at most doing specific differenciated work, about 1h00 a week at most. There is no way they could have moved these children by 3 sublevels in 2 months (all of the ones who got a 6c got it by the end of their teeth according to the teacher).

It wasn't coming from a nicely differenciated work done in class throughout the year.

However, it does mean that some children who would NOT be outliers in a mixed ability system become outliers in a selective one. Because selection is usually based on a single test on a single day, false negatives and false positives are both possible. That means that a low-middle ability child can end up being seen as 'exceptionally low ability' in a selective school (and may end up as isolated as a child with significant SEN would in a mixed ability school, even though their ability is common in the general population). Equally, higher middle ability children may not pass on the day, and become 'high ability outliers' within a non-academic school.

I get what you are saying Teacher. It's like what Bertrand seems to be saying. While it makes sense at first. I think you are wrong about this.

IQ falls into a classic bell curve shape. True outliers have to be 2 standard deviations from the mean. That means the most able outliers are the top 2.5% of the population. Selective schools are taking more like the top 10%. So, if comprehensive schools were denuded of all of the top 10% (they won't be for a myriad of reasons, but lets just assume) then the kids in the left in the comprehensive schools would all be in the buldge of the bell curve. This means even those on the verge of being in the top 10% would have a reasonable number of peers around, simply because they are in the buldge, not the ever thinning tail.

Disclaimer: my stats learning is over 20 years old and hasn't been used since, so I am prepared to be corrected.

So the problem of those on the edge of being selected for grammar schools is one of disappointment and frustration, not a lack of peers.

"So the problem of those on the edge of being selected for grammar schools is one of disappointment and frustration, not a lack of peers."

I agree with this.

DC who scrape into grammar schools by dint of über coaching but aren't really in the right place are managed out, at the very latest by the end of Y11.

I think you are right 2016IsANewYearforMe, but don't forget that there are two tails on a bell curve.

But you are right: the children on the 90th and 91st centiles are at a much fatter bit of the curve than the ones on the 98th and 99th centiles, so they'll have more company.

Also, the ability spread between those between the 80th and 90th centiles will be much reduced that the ability spread between 90 and 99.99999

Well, of course it could have been "can't be bothered"- but it does seem a bit odd. But it sounds a bit more like a resources and a lots of other stuff going on and what benefit will getting a 6a actually confer.........But I suppose that doesn't fit with the all teachers are lazy and joined the profession with the sole intention of making sure children do as badly as possible even if it means a bad OfSTED and no pay rise........

Is that the message you have taken from these last 2000+ post Bertrand? I don't see that at all. One of us would not get L6 on reading!

Where on earth did I say that the teachers are lazy ?!? Please don't make me say things I haven't said or have so much prejudices about people on this thread.

dc1 Y6 teacher is actually an amazing teacher (that's why she is stuck in Y6!) and I know she is doing her best.
But doing her best means doing the best with her ressources and with the pupils she has in front of her. Very few of the dcs in dc1 class were truly L6 material. Why would she have 'bothered' to put a lot of emphasis on that rather than on ensuring that the children had a secure level 4 and 5?

var,wood, my DD only got 55/60, am I still allowed to contribute to this thread

bert, there was indeed a short period of about 4 years were separate level 6 papers were offered for SATS. Relevant to this thread in that it gave the schools who wished to do so, something to aim at for their more able pupils. The changes to KS2 SATS make it less obvious that this will be the case in future.

Where NOT were

So the problem of those on the edge of being selected for grammar schools is one of disappointment and frustration, not a lack of peers.

But this assumes something about the selection process.

Many posters in this thread seem to be equating intelligence and potential ability (IQ) with achievement. This is not the case in practice: those from non supportive homes don't necessarily achieve as much as they should do at 11+, while those with high IQ but specific learning issues may also fail to make the cut in a selection process weighted towards achievement. Then there are children who just came to the UK from abroad: they might be very bright indeed but still not able to pass the 11+ without the required language skills.

You are assuming that the children who just miss the grammar aren't in the top ability group, i.e. there aren't children with IQs > 99th percentile in secondary moderns, just because they "only" achieved in the 70th or 80th percentile. I very much doubt that there are no very high IQ children in secondary moderns, particularly in areas where grammar schools tests are opt in and particularly when the testing procedure doesn't allow for specific learning issues.

disquisitiones - the selection process for 11+ is not weighted towards achievement. Indeed, NVR is considered by many to be the most reliable indicator of potential among the many other tests that could be and are chosen at 11+ and is useful when discriminating between candidates who do not share a first language.

disquisitions, it is totally irrelevant to the topic now, but you said up thread that posters of G&T who their dcs goes to SS doesn't seem to hang around in this board. I can sort of see why. They might be totally happy with their dc's education. They might not want to share tips. Parents and teachers who come on here even though their dcs are doing good are naturally good people who wants to help, like yourself, maybe?

But I don't understand the intention of Bert at all. I used to think you are very helpful, genuine poster, who is willing to give us great tips.

"But I don't understand the intention of Bert at all. I used to think you are very helpful, genuine poster, who is willing to give us great tips."

I still am. I think you just don't agree with some of what I say!

disqui yes I fully agree that high IQ doesn't equal acheivement.
And I would also hope that at the level we are talking about (primary/secondary), one big factor that would lead to acheivemnet is hard work from middle of the curve children.

Bertrand - on a thread which is about how best to support gifted DC when school isn't addressing their needs, people are pretty unlikely to agree with your beliefs that such DC don't deserve special attention.

Bobo- it seeks to me that the threads' remit is a bit broader than that. You, for example, are finding space to use it to aim potshots at me.......