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

[EricNorthmanSucks]

var you are right perhaps about OTSTED.

I visit a lot of schools as part of outreach work and some of the least likely are so open and willing to discuss how best to help their most able pupils.

Then others, considered 'better' schools are just awful. Closed minded, resistant to new ideas and taking decisions which actively harm the ongoing opportunities for the most able.

[var123]

Toughasoldboots - I am sorry. I didn't mean to ignore your post (and yes I am very interested). DS1 has a spiky profile too - high for most things and bottom 8% for writing speed.

[BertrandRussell]

Ambroxide- did the teacher give you any idea of the sort of thing she was thinking about? I always think that it must be particularly difficult to provide differentiated work for outliers in English when they are so young- so many books, for example, would be completely inappropriate for a year 4 to read, even thought they are easily capable of reading them........

[EricNorthmanSucks]

I think whether state schools offer an appropriate education for the highly able is luck of the draw.

Provision is incredibly inconsistent.

There is also a subjective element. One parent's appropriate is another parent's non existent.

I know from many years on this site that what I am looking for in a school and what I value is not necessarily in line with the majority. ( to say the least ).

I also think that there are some areas if giftedness and some levels that school per se can't really deal with.

[Lurkedforever1]

var I don't think your friend was actually wrong. Some outstandings genuinely are, some requires improvement are dire. I just don't think that ofsted are always accurate, and even ones that are accurate for the most part can be incorrect when it comes to the most able.

There's a 'good' secondary near me, that in all honesty is good in everything, except for providing academically for the top 40%. Most of those 40% would undoubtedly be served brilliantly by your ds's outstanding, so in their case it would make a difference. But in terms of the most able, there's no difference. Hilariously the awful school is rated good too. Despite the fact unlike the first school, it's awful in every way except for box ticking.

Dd was also served well by her supposedly bad primary and is now out of it at a selective independent. So I'm not drawn to this subject with personal issues for my child. Unless you count the one bad primary teacher years ago and my grudge that I was put in the position of having no choice but to try for full fee remission. I also know that come what may my income won't rise till dd leaves school, because any increase will reduce the bursary. I'm over the moon with our choice and dds opportunity, but find it hugely unfair that the state system could refuse to offer my child suitable secondary education without any come back. Chasing a bursary should have been about wanting all the trimmings, not because it was the only way dd would get an academic curriculum and escape the boredom of working years behind her ability.

What draws me is the fact I see my education being repeated with other children.

[EricNorthmanSucks]

I have some sympathy with state schools using their previous and limited resources on the majority ( particularly where the most able are getting good grades).

[EricNorthmanSucks]

Precious

[disquisitiones]

I visit a lot of schools as part of outreach work and some of the least likely are so open and willing to discuss how best to help their most able pupils. Then others, considered 'better' schools are just awful. Closed minded, resistant to new ideas and taking decisions which actively harm the ongoing opportunities for the most able.

I completely agree with Eric on this - it is very depressed when one goes into such schools.

Somewhat related to this issue: we live in the catchment of a comprehensive with very skewed demographics (lots of academics, doctors, London commuters) in which 5/9 sets are high achievers and 3 or 4 sets would be grammar school material.

There are grammars about 20 miles away across country borders. We could have moved to them. They all have a reputation that many kids are heavily tutored to get in - I suspect they are taking broadly from the top 30% in ability terms, i.e. their cohorts are pretty comparable with the top 3/4 sets in our comp. The top 4 sets of our comp actually out perform the grammars and the grammars don't seem to offer more academically, so we never considered them. I also have had the impression that these grammars are very rigid and not willing to change what they do, as Eric says above.

Since the comp has such high results you could wonder why we looked at independent schools at all - but the issues are that they teach a relatively narrow curriculum, and don't have the resources to offer opportunities such as Olympiads to the most able. They rely on parents to provide extra-curriculars and co-curriculars.

So while DC would probably have gotten good grades in this school, we looked at privates for a deeper and broader curriculum. We looked at three privates: (a) top 10 in league tables, (b) top 40 and (c) top 100. We didn't feel there was much difference in what was being offered to the highest achievers in the three schools: (a) and (b) are further up the league tables due to being "big name" schools and hence more over-subscribed. Both (a) and (b) effectively re-select at 16, explaining their high A level results. The top groups of (c) do just as well, but they don't select so heavily so their overall average results aren't quite as high. We actually felt that (c) was the most flexible and the most willing to offer something extra personalised to our DC.

BTW we could have also have changed jobs and moved to a superselective grammar area (but I am pretty unconvinced by the teaching and atmosphere in these particular schools), and we could have moved to the US and accessed a gifted program. But the latter are not usually particularly terrific: they can have arcane entry requirements and often don't offer as much as top set kids in the UK get.

[EricNorthmanSucks]

disquit I think what your describing is the best part of going private; meaningful choice.

Money gives one so much flexibility and power. I never feel more vulnerable than when I have no meaningful choice in my life.

[AprilLady]

var, I have also tried to contribute to the discussion where relevant, but like others am wary of being flamed for my choice of school and/or for sounding smug or entitled because I am able to send my DC to good selective private schools. Unlike disqui, we chose a top ten league table type school, but not in London and, in terms of applicants to places, significantly less oversubscribed than similar London schools. DD1 is very happy there. There are downsides, and I am less sure it is the right school for my "spiky profile" DD2. She is currently happy and doing well at the junior school, but I am concerned that this will not continue in the senior school. The downside of very selective independents is that many are not treat at supporting anything other than very, very mild SEN.

[AprilLady]

Great

[iseenodust]

Var DS started in state primary but is now in an independent. Due to geography it can best be described as only slightly selective.

Experience in outstanding state primary was totally dependent upon the teacher each year. School had him on the G&T list. As parents we were very hands off as we were more concerned about being a rounded individual, friends etc. Some years were spent treading water but in yr4 the deputy HT took it upon herself to give DS 1-2-1 maths sessions. Fabulous in terms of differentiation, not so fabulous in marking a child out as different.

Fast forward to y7 and DS is bored in maths (as are a number of his friends). I had an unscheduled chat with the head of maths at parents' evening and the response was 'our results are fantastic in maths and that doesn't come from lessons being boring...he could join the lunchtime ICT club?' There are approx. 130 children per year but there is no setting, in any subject, until yr8. 'Differentiation' is more of the same. So in answer one of your points, I am not expecting DS to receive 'a fair share' of opportunity to advance in maths this year. He will though in languages for example.

Why do we pay when it comes out of savings not current earnings? Because the local comprehensives are not good & I do not believe a 'bright' child will do well anywhere. We are in it for the long run and this year is, in my mind (to save my sanity!), about settling into secondary school, extra-curricular activities, friendships, sports etc. He is after all only age11.

[teacherwith2kids]

"superselective grammar area (but I am pretty unconvinced by the teaching and atmosphere in these particular schools)"

Entirely anecdotally - I attended a course with 2 other staff from my school, as part of which we observed a variety of different lessons at a superselective grammar, supposedly as an example of what 'truly outstanding teaching' looked like.

The staff from my school were shocked, as had we delivered ANY of the lessons we saw to observers at our school, we would have been graded Requires Improvement or below (this was in the days of individual lesson grading). When we privately shared our thoughts with other teachers on the course - from much, much rougher and more challenging schools - they felt the same. However, the course leaders - staff from the superselective - were genuinely proud of what we were seeing and thought it to be best practice. It was ... enlightening.

[opioneers]

Lurked, I agree with you totally. We're in the same position (although not with full fee remission) and it still irks me that we've been forced into it. Although, as EricNS says, at least we have had the luxury of having that choice.

But - and I think this relates to the discussion about state schools too- we didn't go for the most academic school (this is primary, I think it will change at secondary). There were practical considerations like distance involved, but the smaller, more nurturing school was prepared to be much more flexible, and have continued to be.

[Lurkedforever1]

eric I can sympathise with a school like the former I mentioned. But I can't sympathise with a system that believes 2 sciences, one mfl and a load of vocational subjects, all delivered at an infuriatingly slow pace is suitable provision for an able child. And I have nothing but anger for a system that allows a second school that only caters academically to the minority on the borderline pass level, and vocationally is only interested in how many possible passes they can get for the league tables, regardless of whether it actively hinders the individuals education and future prospects, right through the ability spectrum. And I'm infuriated by a system that has no problem with parents of able kids in less affluent areas praying for the fore mentioned school, despite knowing it will fail their kids academically, purely because it beats the alternative.

I've always wondered how accurate the conclusions are about pp and lower academic achievement. I'm not convinced its a general rule with some exceptions as is generally accepted. In wealthier areas average achievement comprises the lowest and the highest. In poorer areas the wider range of generally able to highly able kids are generally overlooked for the needs of the majority. Hence the average achievement of the pp group only comprises middle and low achievers. Not to mention a poorer parent usually has less resources (time or money) to prop up that failed by school able child.

I'm willing to accept that I personally have weird life circumstances. But I don't accept that in general its rare to have kids in the top 20% or so whilst also being deprived in other ways. Yet the general stats imply it is.

[disquisitiones]

I see a lot of university students coming from superselective grammars. Their tales of the teaching they received can indeed be "enlightening".

Universities also deal with a lot of mental health issues amongst students, and students from top superselective grammars seem to have a disproportion amount of anxiety - these students can be desperately afraid of failing, indeed to the extent that e.g. a student tried to kill herself rather than get below a 2:i. Interestingly we don't seem to see quite as many mental heath issues amongst those from superselective privates, suggesting the anxiety and perfectionism of high achievers is perhaps dealt with better in such places? (Or perhaps my own experiences aren't representative.) Certainly the overall atmosphere and ethos of the school is a big factor for us, given the drastic increase in mental health issues amongst students over the last few years.

[EricNorthmanSucks]

lurked I agree with you and do not condone practices and policies that essentially harm the ongoing opportunities of the able ( let alone the highly able ).

What is especially infuriating is when such policies are based not on economics ( which is more understandable) but on ideology. And dodgy ideology at that.

And this is what I think drives a lot if parents to super selective schools.

The teaching may be lack lustre ( I haven't viewed enough lessons in enough subjects in enough different schools to make anything like an informed view) but parents won't have to fight for basics like triple science!

[disquisitiones]

I'm sure some superselectives are indeed terrific schools. And some are terrific schools for the right pupils, but perhaps not so good for certain kids.

[disquisitiones]

And my concerns about correlations with mental health issues would be more about the girls superselectives. (Anecdotal/personal experience rather than data.)

[EricNorthmanSucks]

tough pretty cool to have the choice and even cooler to be most satisfied with one of the free options .

DD decided herself at 10 that she was not going to attend the selective independent school or the grammar school for which she had places.

Wiser by far than her stupid mother!

DS could cope with any environment. He's so laid back he's horizontal .