To Be Shocked That DS Got A 'D' In His First Half-Termly Report At Grammar School

[gazzalw]

Not sure if I'm looking for reassurance or what but here goes...

DS has always been regarded as very good at maths by his teachers and us (well he was at primary school) and got a Level 5A in his KS2 SATs. He did do Level 6 and didn't pass but we assumed that was because he was actually ill when he did the exam (not an excuse but he did have slapped cheek virus quite badly) and the primary school teacher who was coaching his year to the Level 6 curriculum was off sick for the last half term so they didn't complete the work.

We had always assumed that he had passed his three 11+ exams on the basis of his maths, NVR/VR skills rather than his English (for which he got a 5B in KS2 SATS) which has never been his strongest subject not one that particularly interests him.

Note he hasn't been tutored in maths at all.

Anyway, going to a super-selective we were under no illusions that he would be a top dog in any subject, but in maths would have probably expected him to be average in the class. Looking at how he's been getting on in his homework it doesn't look as if he's had any major issues with not understanding the work.

So imagine our shock (and his) when he got his first report and although he has got Bs for most subjects (including English) which put him in the middle of the class (no problem with that especially as he is quite lazy), he got a 'D' for maths and is apparently one of the bottom three in the class of 30 boys!

What would your opinion be? I guess it might just be a reflection of the fact that in a boys grammar school they are generally maths whizzes, that a lot of them have been tutored and are working well above the baseline levels that you would expect even of grammar school children, that maths is one of those subjects that it's easier to coach ahead in and a lot of them have been coached ahead (he says that most of them have tutors although difficult to know whether that is indeed true), that he wasn't taught to such a high standard as other boys at his primary school or that he just isn't naturally as good at maths as his cohort?

I know that as parents we can think our children are brilliant when they're obviously not, but the thing is we have always wholeheartedly felt he has some latent skill at maths - maybe he has but just compared to his classmates it doesn't seem that way!

That would essentially put him in the bottom group in his Year (unless he just happens to be in the class most capable at maths!) which I find hard to believe as he is quite clearly a lot more competent than we were at the same age (and we went to grammar schools and were not in the bottom sets)

Hope to get some insights rather than being shouted down....I guess the bottom line is that in high achieving grammars someone has got to be at the bottom ;-(....

There is a pyschological theory that children shouldn't be praised for their cleverness instead for the amount of effort they have put in as when they come across things that are difficult they think their inability to do the task means they are stupid. So they stop trying as they don't want to prove that this is right. There maybe a bit of this going on. If your DS was told at primary school he was great at maths and he was really clever at it when he's reached Grammar and discovered that there are hard things he has stopped trying rather than putting extra effort in to solve the problems. He sounds bright enough and it's only the first term. Personally I would be careful not to put too much emphasis on why everyone else is doing better -tutoring etc as it only gives him an out as to why he's not doing well unless of course you think he is really working as hard as he can.

I don't believe engineers are undervalued I just think most people can't be engineers. And I think a classroom in a super selective grammar possibly isn't the place to go looking for the people who do have those skills.

I would guess that what you are thinking of as 'engineer' isn't quite the same as modern reality...therein lies the problem. (not that most people can't do it. Most people can't be first-rate accountants either.)

And grammar schools are exactly where many (probably most) good scientists have arisen in the past.

It's funny the reputation 'accountancy' has, isn't it?!

I must say that it's also unfortunate that all the accountants I know (5) are profoundly dull people but I know that that doesn't mean all accountants are dull!

I think the fact the remark came from an 11 year old is the most important fact. I have a 'friend' who has sent her DS private. When he is asked what he wants to do after school he says 'be a solicitor'. Last month, someone asked him, now 14, what a solicitor does. He said 'I dunno'... ie his mum wants him to be an accountant, he just parrots what she says!

For the record, the superbright at DSs state comp, those with maths 'A' levels at 12, want to be actuaries!

Anyway, we digress.

And, imho, engineers shall inherit the Earth.

I genuinely think that- I believe those who can take stuff, do stuff to it and make it into other, more useful stuff are those we will desperately need in the coming end-days of oil.

We won't have quite so much need for those who move money from a to b whilst skimming a bit off the top of each transaction or those who count the money as it crosses their desks.

That and peer group...DDs friends all seem to want to be vets.

@grimma indeed but it would have looked a bit self congratulatory for me to say that, wouldn't it. :D

Scientists and engineers are slightly different animals though, aren't they? I think that scientists are undervalued, specifically undervalued in financial terms, despite the politically motivated push to make all bright children do 3 sciences at GCSE whether they want to or not (which is an appalling thing to do, in my opinion). It's a real shame that successive governments of both hues have got this so very wrong.

As I said, I have, as a result of my career, met a lot of inventor entrepreneurs and none of them were typical academically minded people. I thought from the original post on this sub-topic - which talked about making money, and seemed to be manufacturing biased, rather than designing great bridges, for example (which rarely make any money, not for years and years) - that it was that sort of person the poster was wanting to see more of.

Erebus I expect they think you are dull too. Also, ill informed. :)

I think that scientists are undervalued, specifically undervalued in financial terms
tell me about it!

'making stuff' includes the output of scientists not just engineers. Dysons and drugs; people who can dream up the advanced materials to make eg, advanced microchips and then the people who write the code which runs on them (software engineers as well as mech eng!).

Also, chemical engineers. :D But none of them can do it on their own. To successfully design something, bring it to the market and make a go of selling it long term and actually building a sustainable business you need to bring in people with all sorts of skills, including accountants.

a lot of the people who go bust do so because they didn't think this element of it through properly, not because they had a crap idea.

Of course you need all sorts of functions in a company (and outside - bankers even!) ...its the balance that is skewed.

@Grimma There isn't actually an oversupply of proper qualified accountants though. There's an oversupply of unqualified or part qualifiers, there's an oversupply of technicians, but the real deal? Not an over-supply (although there is a mismatch between the many different types of skill sets and the growth areas of opportunity). There is also an issue with the over 50s but that isn't restricted to one profession, it's an issue in many professions. :(

However - things are on the cusp of changing massively (although there will be tensions between the effects of the likely imminent changes) so, who knows where the future lies. I would say the same was true for inventors/entrepreneurs too though, especially those in manufacturing.

Mordion - my experience of these 5 accountants would lead me to think 'other people' don't actually cross their minds let alone having an opinion of their 'dullness'.....!

3 are married to friends, 2 are married to each other (our DSs are school friends). My friends choose not to bring their OHs to social do's any more having each suffered a little in the past from having done so . (The 'incident' I saw was one bloke actually have a meltdown because people were taking too long to sit down for a restaurant meal. He actually walked out!) And the 'couple' "prefer not to socialise", which is of course entirely their right.

Just so you know why I've reached my conclusion about these 5 people I know who are linked by the fact they are all chartered accountants!

But dull's OK. We can't all be social dilettantes! It does take 'all sorts'.

But 'ill informed' as a retort to what I said? No, you mean 'You don't think the same way I do therefore you're wrong', don't you? .

No, I meant you were ill informed since you clearly don't know what accountants actually do, and instead resorted to media cliche. I could have said ill informed and lazy, but I restricted it to ill informed just in case rather than being lazy you had been ever so busy. It seems perhaps I was too charitable though. :(

Erebus Also - I'm not sure being the sort of person to have a public meltdown in a restaurant over something like seating speed could be described as 'dull'. Rather too eventful for most peoples' tastes, surely? It sounds a bit like AS to me and yes, some accountants do have AS but no more or less than people in other professions which also require highly intelligent people and are perhaps less judgey panted than some.

You actually sound pretty mean and judgey panted yourself, you do know that, right?

We wouldn't assume that just because we knew a physicist with a touch of the Sheldon Coopers that they were all like that? Or ...that all engineers were mainly like the ones we happened to know , non of whom were 'typically academically minded'?

mordion! Settle down!

Where have I said 'I know what accountants do' in order for you to tell me I am ill informed because I don't know what accountants do?! I haven't cited media cliche, I've only cited personal experience of the people I know who are accountants!!

You really don't need to go into bat for the entire profession, you know. I wouldn't presume to do so for my profession had someone told me that 5 of its members behaved in a certain way.

I am actually, tbh, a leetle bit concerned that an accountant hasn't checked exactly what I said in forensic detail before answering what you thought I said! I thought attention to detail was essential to being an accountant, but then, I'm lazy and ill-informed, so what do I know, hey?

Anyway, I should stop having fun with you, now, so I'll sign off, here!

@Grima I never said all the engineers as you well know (if you read my posts). I said specifically that the successful inventor entrepreneurs that I had met or knew of through my job were not typically academically minded. Obviously engineers are academically minded, engineering is a fiendishly difficult sort of degree course to get on. Most engineers are not successful entrepreneurs though. They tend to work for people who are.

Erebus if all the accountants you genuinely know are skimming off the top of every transaction, then you should report them to the police.

Except of course, they aren't.

But it's easy and lazy to accuse an entire profession of being crooks. And then bluster when you're pulled up on it. Just like it's easy and lazy to dismiss an entire profession as being dull based on a rather cruel assessment of 5 people. And then bluster when you're pulled up on it.

And I did check exactly what you said, that is why I'm so offended. Accusation of impropriety is a big deal in my world. A VERY big deal.

Mordion - no, its financial advisers who - until the new change in the rules - perfectly legally 'skimmed'.

And they are not accountants.

Of course any crook might also skim off the top of a deal or transaction. Misappropriation of assets is a very common type of fraud, although it isn't the one that leads to the biggest losses. Management, staff (including accounts staff) - typical businesses will have many points at which dodgy dealings could occur absent proper internal controls etc. To characterise the profession as one that did that as a matter of course though is very ill informed, just as ill informed as confusing the profession with IFAs, insurance brokers, bankers etc.

I've lost count of the number of threads we have had in here over the years where teachers have expressed their irritation at their profession being unfairly and completely inaccurately maligned or otherwise misrepresented by members of the public and/or people on MN. I don't think it's unreasonable for me to be annoyed with posters doing the same thing to my profession. Especially when it is such very lazy misrepresentation. To be honest, I'm more pissed off about the resorting to cliche than I am about the insults. Although I'm sure I'll get over it soon enough.

Can you think of any profession which isn't in some way misrepresented?

I think I was surprised at the wanting to be an accountant at 11, given that at that same age, my DC want/wanted to be a professional footballer, 'the sting' from top gear, and either a west end performer or a marine biologist (or as DD puts it, more people go to the theatre at the weekend, so maybe do both!)

I hadn't intended to start a bun fight, it was a light hearted observation.

Yes, at DS's primary school the girls all wanted to be doctors and the boys wanted to be footballers!

And I'm sorry about the accountant bit - had no idea it would start such a bunfight! Just for the record I wasn't saying accountants were boring per se but that it's boring that that it is what so many of them aspire to....it does rather smack of parental 'hovering' IMHO!

thanks for all your comments by the way - feel a lot better about it really. I think it will probably take DS the whole of Year 7 to adjust to be quite honest - at least.

Yes, Gatheringlilacs it does rather put it into perspective to think that DS hopefully will be an A student but that in the context of a grammar school he will probably be lost as an average!

It's all character building stuff though!

Hi gazzalw, joining this late...But I couldn't help being surprised at the way your DS school "grades" the students. It seems his grade depends on what the other children are attaining as in "average" or "top", whereas I always thought a grade reflects an individual's knowledge and attainment on a particular subject... Maybe the bar is set very high in grammar schools and it does reflect his first assesment results, but it shouldn't be explained to you in terms of position within the group, I don't think that's a constructive healthy way of thinking iykwim! But then it's all about competition these days isn't it. Very tiring.