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

disquisitiones
Many posters in this thread seem to be equating intelligence and potential ability (IQ) with achievement.

I don't think you were around for the early part of the first thread were you? The way I remember it, the debate was around whether it was right to assume that more able children should be treated less favourably because they had a natural advantage. (It was around the time that multivac started dropping hints that she knew how to solve everything, but wasn't prepared to say what it was, should you go looking for it.)

There were quite a few posters who made it clear that, apart from any other reason, the argument was flawed because we know that success (even mere exam success, never mind the much more elusive life success howsoever defined) is not guaranteed by intelligence.

I don't think it is fair to ask for special attention for my DC. Just equal attention. Equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome (etc., etc.)

If you stand in the firing line and jump up and down, Bertrand, you will generally find that people shoot at you!

By special attention, I mean attention to their needs.

Ok, I agree with that! I don't think they should get extra attention, just that some time is allocated to them (as it is to all other parts fo the classroom) and that when it is given, the time is spent appropriate. By appropriate, i mean not handing out busywork but by sufficiently differentiating such that the more able child is offered a challenge sometimes.

disqui I wasn't addressing all those underlying issues.

I was narrowly looking at the idea that cutting off a standard deviation would create a new set of outliers. Statistically, it would not.

I agree that IQ does not guarantee success. I was in a special program for children with IQs in the top 3% thirty years ago. There were 12 of us. Due to social media, I got in touch with a few. One committed suicide last summer, another died of poverty (poor diet and drugs), another is working in a call centre. (I don't know what happened to the other 8.)

The program sorted us on IQ, not class. Class would be a much better indicator of later success in life.

2016IsANewYearforMe, that sounds hideous. I am really sorry.

It's okay var123, I am philosophical about it. But when I participate in these endless selective education threads that go round and round, I often think about it.

That was a situation, where the powers that be carefully filtered out for middle class bias in the choosing of G&T. They really did find the bright but poor or from a troubled home children, and it didn't make a difference. Doing well in school and life is about so much more than IQ. That said, I am not against some selection in education. As the children get older and the abilities spread more and more I think it is a pragmatic response to the constrained resources we have for education.

opioneers "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."

[Refers to this: timdracup.wordpress.com/2016/02/01/policy-exchange-to-the-rescue/]

I like them because they’re essentially a truth seeker and you get everything laid out on the table with sufficient detail to emerge with a quite well-informed opinion that won’t necessarily agree with theirs. Quite a contrast with all that denial of objective reality, faddishness and ankle-biting you find in so much dialogue around schools/education.

I would prefer to see it done Tim’s way because they know what they’re talking about and their reasoning is quite persuasive, but as a cynical pragmatist I struggle to imagine in-situ working well in practice. Patching new features into legacy systems tends to be much more difficult than implementing them independently. Schools have all that ideological baggage and inertia, so I think there’s a very high risk that they’d simply absorb and dissipate any in-situ stuff. Imperfectly save a few or do nothing much for more?

I think his reasoning works if you define gifted - as I think he does - in the more conventional, wider, high achievers kind of way. But for the top 1% or less, I don't think you can graft his kind of solution onto the existing system, for all the reasons you say, and also because the mindset in schools as things stand is set against useful differentiation for the highly able. So really, I think the answer is to do both.

But I was quite surprised at his saying that there are only very few of these kinds of schools in existence - I know of a lot more in the US (state schools, not private) and I've not really looked into it that hard. Which, for me, kind of confirms that his interests are with the top 10%. Which is fine, but I think it's all getting a bit muddled in that article.

2016IsANewYearforMe What do you think of this article?

For me, it has me nodding in agreement in places and shifting uncomfortably in others, asking myself if DS1 or Ds2 will think that I was like this.
www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2010/oct/09/gifted-children-joan-freeman-psychologist

This paper on the test administered in many secondary schools might be of interest. We have never had DS tested for anything but school shares the result of these tests with all parents (own child only not whole year) so we have an approximation of where he sits in his peer group, nationally:
www.cem.org/attachments/publications/Using%20MidYIS%20IPRs%20Booklet.pdf

opioneers "kind of confirms that his interests are with the top 10%"

Not quite. He explicitly compares spending money on "schools for the very top of the attainment distribution or in-situ tailored support for all high attainers from disadvantaged backgrounds".

I think they mean all high attainers, but I have a serious problem with "disadvantaged backgrounds".

Bobo- the selection process for 11+ is not weighted towards achievement.

It depends on the school. For the grammar schools nearest me it would be pretty much impossible to make the cut without a high score on the English paper. Actually, I know personally of several pupils who were rejected despite having 99+ percentile IQ - they had only been in the UK for a year or two, one came from Iraq.

I know that the earlier thread did distinguish between intelligence/ability/potential and achievement, but many of us who have high achieving bright children (this includes me) fall into the trap of equating achievement with intelligence. Whenever selective schools are discussed, I always feel the need to remember the bright kids for whom intelligence and achievement are not in line.

I had an interesting conversation with DD's teacher today. She told me that DD has gone so far beyond the Y6 curriculum with literacy in the last half term that she has no idea what to do with her (she's calling in specialist help, DD is in Y4, teacher has a degree in Eng Lit). It made me think of you all. I told her that I was just massively grateful that DD was actually being thought of and accommodated as so many of my 'friends' had had terrible experiences with their children spending years totally unchallenged. This is a really ordinary state primary, so it can be done. Children like this can be accommodated and respected and valued even when the school in question isn't particularly used to high flyers.

I believe in hardwork and trying to encourage my daughter to learn that achievements are not easy, if its too easy then its not as highly regarded. Its important that she makes efforts and put work for any results she want. I dont plan and will never check her IQ, whats the point. I know she is well and bright then the rest of any success is up to her hard work. As parents we try to give them as much guidance and support and most of all encouragement for any failure. Then gifted or not, high IQ or not, she will do well. I although always have the feeling I havent given her enough support. I need to work harder too. Well, thats ok, I am learning being a parent too.

var123 It's a good article imho.

It's true that what all children need is love and protection, even the ones we'd like to take down a peg or two.

Ambroxide

I am so happy for you and your dd.
Can I ask, does it seem like a weight lifted, to know you can trust her teacher.

Can I also ask anyone willing to say, have you/ do you spend money to fund extra material, classes, competitions etc for your children?
Sorry to sound dim, but obviously a bit different for us.

Can I ask, does it seem like a weight lifted, to know you can trust her teacher.

TBH, I already trusted her. She seems like the kind of person who treats everyone as an individual, if you know what I mean. She is very good with my quirky, peculiar, clever, scaredy kid. But yes, it is lovely to know that DD has someone on her side who isn't just spouting the 'mastery' bollocks and recognises that if you've already achieved mastery as far as the primary curriculum goes then you need something else.

It's funny, in KS1 I had to go in again and again to ask for harder books, better maths, more differentiation. KS2 in the same school seems a totally different ballgame and DD has had so much extra stuff (good input, eg the secondary teacher for maths etc, not just random problem solving input). I'm so grateful for our lovely school. Interestingly, also, this school is v unpopular in the local area as it has way fewer high achievers than most. But my friends with clever children at more popular schools don't seem to be getting anywhere near the amount of personal attention that DD is getting. Sometimes being a massive outlier works in your favour!

ambrox really pleased for you and your dd.

new in terms of dds ability, not really. I'm that way inclined so diy versions, or cheap/ free stuff has mainly been easily accessed. She's been on the odd extra curricular thing through her primary where she's met other kids similar to her from other schools she wouldn't normally meet. Everything I've ever done could equally apply to any supportive parent with a child of low or average ability, dds ability just meant we did it differently iyswim? Perhaps if I hadn't been able to supply it myself and her primary had left her coasting it would be different.

Ambroxide, I'm also very happy for your DD.

Your school sounds a lot like DS's state primary.

It's nice to hear a positive story where a school and teachers are valuing and treating an able/bright/gifted child with the same importance as all the other children in their classroom. And not only that but "going the extra mile" like teacherwith2kids said in one of her posts, that some schools and their staff are willing to do and see ability as 'exciting', rather than 'a nuisance'.

var there are lots of posters with very able DC who don't come on this board.

If you started a thread asking what their DC receive in their private school or grammar school, some would come out of the woodwork.

You're right, you won't see them on this board often. I almost never come here other than with my widening participation hat on.

My own DC are at the end of their school career and their needs have been met to my satisfaction.

But even when we were more in the thick of things, I didn't come here. I guess because I didn't have any personal concerns to raise. Also, if I'm honest, a slight queasiness about describing my DC as 'gifted'.

Ambroxide that is really wonderful. I am so pleased you you and your DD.

It seems to be a developing theme here that the best schools for delivering what G&T children actually need are to be found amongst the ones that OFSTED are at best lukewarm about. Is that what everyone else is beginning to deduce too?

That would imply to me, that Ofsted have constructed their criteria for how schools should be away from the needs of the most able. Except, I don't think that is true for one reason:

I had a friend about the time we were moving home to the UK. She was a former HT and is now an Ofsted inspector. In the months before we moved back home, she was giving me advice about finding a good school for my children, who were YR and Y2 at that time. She had spent time with them both and she had seen that they were highly able, so she knew what we needed. All the advice she gave me centred around finding an outstanding school or a good one with some outstanding features. Why would she do that unless she thought it was good advice?

Also, if I'm honest, a slight queasiness about describing my DC as 'gifted'.

I think many of us feel that. I suspect it is a vanity label that the government gave our kids in the 90s. A sort of shiny thing to distract people from the fact that a decent education is hard to come by. IMO they went too far though with the superlatives.

My original post on the first thread, back in November, was written in frustration and with the dawning realisation that I've been had. Really, my first paragraph summed it all up:

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 am interested in the experiences of parents who can afford a place at a selective school in the independent sector, but I can't drag them here! I can see why you wouldn't want to bother yourself with this part of the forum if all was going well.