Can average children be pushed to get 'A' at GCSE or is it setting them up to fail?!

[Bluebell99]

My friend has just removed her child from our secondary school because she wants her to get A's in her GCSE and doesn't think she is on track to do so. Parents are supportive pushy and ambitious but child is average ability but works hard. My other child is at primary with this child's sibling and apparently the sibling is in tears everytime they have a test. So her children are under alot of pressure to do well. Do you think average ability children can achieve 'A' grades if pushed or is it just setting them up to fail???
It's making me worry that I am not pushing my older child enough :( He is above average but not a high flyer.

wordfactory if you want to see the breakdown by attainment, go to the DFE website and look up your school.

However it doesn't surprise me that a private school with a mainly professional intake gets excellent results. It's also worth bearing in mind that SEN doesn't necessarily mean low attainer/predicted grades, neither does EAL.

I think it depends on the child and whether as a parent you want them to fulfil their potential (not necessarily academically), lead an enriched and happy life and learn to be independent.

Our ds is uber bright, 11As and one 1A. Didn't kill himself and if he were to work to his full capacity he would be a genius. At the age of about 12 he said to me "I'll pretty much get As and once they're on a certificate nobody will know whether I got 76% or 100% so I'm not killing myself for the marginal benefit.

Our dd is top average and very hard working and will push herself to her full capacity. It is likely she will get a combination of A*s and As.

Only time will tell which one will be the most successful in the long term but my ambition for them is that they both end up doing things they love and are happy. I'm not sure a child who is over pushed ever truly succeeds once they have to work under their own steam.

I very much second marriedinwhite.

In hindsight I can see that I've never 'pushed' my DC. I have to say they're too strong minded on the whole, so pushing would most likely have been counter productive and would also have implied that they weren't doing enough of their own volition.

The most I've done is to support them to get to a decent school, after that (Y7), it's pretty much up to them. During exams I try to keep a lid on the wilder excesses of the siblings etc. and hand out regular meals, but I never intrude on the substance of their work - that's up to them.

I'm sure an A grade at GCSE can be wrung out of an average pupil. I'm very unsure that the process of wringing it out will prove positive though.

My eldest five are roughly where married's DS is, give or take an A* or A or so.

It doesn't sound like any of your DCs are what I would call average children. Are you teachers, or do you know many children?

It is possible, to some extent, to make up for natural ability through sheer hard work, but only to some extent. I have a feeling that on this thread many people are referring to average pupil when what they really mean is not particularly high-flying but still above average. Can a really average pupil get A's or A*s? I don't know - possibly in the odd subject that they might have an aptitude for.

However, I don't think changing schools will make much difference; if the latest league tables tell us anything, it is that achievement at 16 very closely reflects the attainment levels of a school's intake at 11.

OP, there is not much to be gained by worrying about pushing. All you can do is give your DCs the kind of support that yellowtip outlines.

Nothing wrong with an average child being motivated to work hard and get an A at GCSE - exam results are (almost always) a combination of ability and effort. Just like all successes in life.

If the child is being pushed to the point of being unhappy and stressed then that is a different thing.

I think it's really interesting how so many in the UK believe intellect can't be significantly developed. Having lived and worked in Asia the mindset seems different. It's thought that children can grow up to be 'gifted'. Hard work and purposeful practice can bring about neural changes that will develop an average intellect (whatever that means) into a superior one.

I could predict - with frightening accuracy - within my own peer group, who would go on to have children who would be the A and A*s, drama scholarship/exhibition winners etc. Not the children of necessarily the most intellectually 'gifted' peers but those who had a competitive spirit and enormous drive and ambition that they would almost certainly instill (where possible) in their children.

What happend to those youngsters with 'tiger parents' who got their children to do NVR, VR, Maths and Kumon etc for 10 minutes a night from the age of 5 or 6, who established a non-negotiable homework routine and instilled a broader intellectual curiosity in their children? These children often succeed academically where others didn't. Superior, mythical talent is often prolonged hidden practice. Whether these things are desirable is a different argument. There are exceptions too, of course.

I've always pushed myself very hard. I'm certainly no genius. But I've done well academically and in the work place.

DH and DC are the same.

I always find it very odd when people assume that those of us who achieve through hard work must be somehow miserable and feel very pressured. I'ts just aint so.

The most miserable kids I've ever met are the lazy unmotivated buggers. They whinge aboyt school, homework, exams, cross country in the rain...

Totally agree wordfactory.

10% talent, 90% hard work.

Please don't go telling the kids that don't get an A that the main problem was that they didn't work hard enough.

Wouldn't dream of it noble.

Some DC clearly don't have the intellect.
Some are in shocking schools.
Some suffer huge socail problems.

But by the same token, please don't tell DC that good grades are unattainable for all but the uber clever. Reasonable intellect and appliction can go a very long way indeed.

I don't tell them that good grades are unattainable for all but the uber clever. However, I don't think that it's good to give parents/carers unrealistic expectations.

cortina we know lots of people who are incredibly clever. Consultant oncologists, neurologists, CEO's, founders of hedge funds, etc., some of whom have double firsts in things like maths and physics or combinations of similar with nuclear physics. They have an extraordinarily incidence of not especially bright children amongst them.

noblegiraffe, married has a DS whose prescience alone at the age of 12 marks him out as not average, though his GCSE results clearly confirm it. Of those of my DC who are through GCSE, they are evidently further up the ability range than I originally thought (but I've done a reverse pf,s,t,f & f b with each of them).

I'm not a secondary school teacher but do have a stake in education and yes, I've seen hundreds go through the system.

The question asked was 'Can an average child be pushed to get an A at GCSE' to which the answer must be a resounding yes. The second part was 'Will this set such a child up to fail?' to which my answer would be no, not necessarily. It must depend on the child: the amount of pushing required (where does encouragement end and pushing begin?), the psychological make up of the child, who is doing the pushing and in what environment?, what is the reaction of the pusher if the A grade isn't achieved? And a whole host of other such questions.

OP didn't ask the obvious corollary about the prospects for such a child at A2, or the more difficult question of whether A*'s can be achieved by an average child with a push.

I suppose it depends what is meant by the average child.

If a child gets a bog standard set of level 4s at KS2 and is then pushed to get As at GCSE (which statistically is very unlikely), is that an average child who exceeded expectations or an above average child who underachieved at KS2? Also, the later the child is measured as 'average' (so, end of Y9 level 5/6), the less chance you have of pushing the child to achieve an A.

The question OP asked prompts a lot of 'depends'.

MarriedinWhite - I am not talking about parents with necessarily the highest IQ having the smartest children but, IME, those who have the drive, ambition and competitive spirit that I believed would manifest itself in the way they raise their children.

Whether it's nuturing musical ability or sporting ability etc, I knew who'd be prepared to get up at 6am to facilitate their children's practice and who likely wouldn't. I've noticed, with some surprise actually, how such an attitude makes such a difference and often leads to so much success for the children. Parents who are prepared to shed blood, sweat and tears for the development of their children will have children who are often perceived to be more 'talented' early on & success often breeds success.

If an average child can get an A through hard work they have dumbed down the exams.

In my day you could bump a C to a B, but not an A unless you were actually good at that subject.

Teaching A level must be a nightmare if DC come in thinking it's that easy.

Startail - I have an average intellect (whatever that means) and got some A grades back when I took O'levels. Looking back those A grades were decided early on - teachers who inspired me & I had a good relationship with wrote on reports: ' Cortina has a flair for my subject'.

I thought 'Wow, I'm 11 and I have a mysterious, God given talent & ability in this subject and my teacher thinks I'm ace'.

So, I went away and read lots and lots and then read some more. I developed my ability incrementally over the years. Meanwhile I put that Maths textbook to the bottom of the pile, they'd said 'Cortina does not find this subject easy' you see.

Perhaps, if I'd admitted I didn't understand early on a growth mindset would have propelled me forward. Thing is I didn't believe. Ok, I'm no mathematician but I believe the mind is powerful and children's ability doesn't have a ceiling at grade C. I think our linear NC system has a lot to answer for, personally. A PP said that an early level 4 at 11 wasn't going to be seen as having the ability etc.

It was just what you thought though, Cortina, you aren't giving your teachers credit for noticing you had a flair - they had already identified you had the potential to be good.

I certainly do agree hard work and inspiration will help you achieve at the top of your potential. Whether that is being pushing yourself into the top 20%, well maybe on the odd subject but I'm not convinced that student could do it across the board and certainly not through four A levels too (where they will meet the more gifted in that subject).

"A PP said that an early level 4 at 11 wasn't going to be seen as having the ability"

If that is my post that you are referring to, then that isn't what I said at all. I said that if you get level 4s at KS2, then it is statistically very unlikely that you'll get As at GCSE. Not because you are seen as not having the ability, but because very few children make that level of progress between KS2 and KS4. In my school (for my subject, maths, at least), we don't set based on KS2 results, but our own tests, and there are plenty of opportunities to move between sets all the way up to Y11. I can think of at least one student who went from a low set early on to studying A-level by progressing up the ranks.

I think if I'd been told 'I had a flair for the subject' in other areas it would have helped but take your point, Kez. I think what the teachers meant by 'flair' was genuine interest. Unfortunately, I thought I could only go so far in certain subjects. Being told I lacked a 'sense of logic that might come in time' didn't motivate me in the same way. Probably just the way I'm wired but I needed others and my teachers to 'believe' I really had the potential in order to exceed it.

Noblegiraffe I had your post in mind and take your point. The problem is that when it is 'statistically very unlikely' you are going to get an A at GCSE (and we know that about you at 11) I think this can be very counter productive and limiting. Your post was the trigger & got my thinking. I've seen many others who do take these early NC levels as strong indicators of future ability and potential.

IME it leads teachers to believe that certain children are just not academically up to par enough for the top grades, 'you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear' as is oft repeated on Mumsnet. This is what the majority believe, including teachers, IME.

I went to a KS2 maths talk and the hand-outs were shot through with references to those predicted a low level 4 at the end of the key stage etc. It was expected that this group would use far easier methods than those more intellectually gifted. As it's statistically so unlikely those predicted a low level 4 are going to do anything to surprise anyone they're not as likely to make huge strides forward IME. Such strides are, after all, extremely unlikely & most assume will happen only due to a serious work ethic rather than a developing cognitive ability that will put them up there with the academic cream.

Our large state primary sets for maths in KS2. The top sets work at a deeper level, extend the children sideways and cover the curriculum more rapidly. It's going to be very difficult for the middle to catch them, no one is expecting them to anyway as it's believed they don't have the same innate ability. Children were set at the end of KS1 on the level achieved at this point. The bar and expectations for the level 3Cs in maths was set much higher than for the others. These are your future As and A*s 'statistically'. The die is cast...

Noble, just to add I am very encouraged it isn't necessarily so in your experience. I think this 'high, middle and low' ability teaching can become entrenched over time.

Startail - I have an average intellect (whatever that means) and got some A grades back when I took O'levels. Looking back those A grades were decided early on - teachers who inspired me & I had a good relationship with wrote on reports: ' Cortina has a flair for my subject'.

But have you, Cortina? How was that measured? Even if you were in a school or stream where you actually took O levels, that would have marked you out as above average. Surely, at that time, the average pupils would have been taking CSEs. Did you get A grades in everything or just the things you had a flair for?

I was in the 'lower band' - we were approximately divided in half 50 per cent did O'levels ('upper band')& the other half 'lower band'.

After the first year a few moved up. Not me. I began to read, voraciously. I was set to do CSEs. My Geography teacher began to assume someone else was doing my homework. I used the word 'undulating' & could explain what it meant when put on the spot. I did well, got 4 As (from memory) & won academic prized at A'level. Maths remained weak :).

No one ever swapped band successfully after the age of 12. A few of my peers came up to try O'levels and didn't make the grade. The thing was there were some who had far more potential than I did who never developed it. No one believed in these late developers so the odds were stacked against them. As it was the head was reluctant to let me attempt O'levels unless I promised to stay on to the 6th form (I could do a typing course if it all went as pear-shaped as she anticipated). I was 'posh' and they liked that it seemed. Useful to show the prospective parents round, etc.

Do people assume that an ability to write reasonably well using the odd long word suggests an above average intellect? The fact that one Geography teacher did helped me tremendously.

I think my cognitive ability developed due to the effort I put in. I put no effort into Maths.