Intrigued by the 'bright child will succeed in any school'

[findasolution]

This comment fascinates me. I am a long time Mumsnet user (name changed), making my first post as an OP.

I was a relatively bright child, straight As up to 3rd year of senior school (in old money), when things started to go wrong.

I got tired of being bullied for being smart and driven, lost my confidence to in being different and dumbed down/rebelled to fit in, resulting in leaving school with 4 O levels - way below my potential.

My mum sent me to a local comprehensive (West Midlands) because it used to be a 'grammar'. Such was the due diligence 30 plus years ago . Couple of years after I left, each entry year was closed to allow the school to run out before the school closed, premises bought...at least there was a reason behind the teachers (most, not all) being completely disengaged with us.

Anyway, that's my background, and I know this is not reflective of most schools today. With so many making choices where they can, by religion; location; intelligence; cost etc allowing), I am really interested in people's opinions on how children can definitely achieve their full potential in any given secondary environment, and therefore considering alternatives to their local state schools is not necessary...

[Abraid2]

BTW, no stealth boast intended as the gap between the desire to study medicine and actually getting in is so vast and we are realistically negative about her chances. I just intended showing that the better double award science GCSEs were quite good preparation for sixth form.

[Abraid2]

My daughter, potential medic, did double science by choice. Has not been a problem for her in Y12 doing Chemistry and Biology. She thinks she was able to enjoy a broader curriculum at GCSE. She would have taken 'Umbridge' as we say on MN at being forced to do triple.

I know that this is about choice, though. She had a choice; others don't, and that's a shame.

[BertrandRussell]

Popping back to share some information- I've just given 3 of ds's friends a lift. All grammar boys, one at a particularly highly regarded school. All the schools have a very high "on to University" %age. And all three offer double award science to the lower sets.

Not sure what this means, if anything. But I thought it was interesting.

[cressetmama]

Skilled tradesmen around here (rural, low wages the norm) expect to earn around £180-200 per day, and to pay their labour £60-70. Hence I am about to pay a brilliant and very hard-working plasterer £3800 for just under three weeks outdoor work in appalling weather. He's busy (we waited three months for the slot) because he is a good craftsman, tidy, prompt and cheerful. His maths are up to the estimating, and the purchase of materials, and the time-weather reckoning that he has to calculate; his English is good enough for his admin. I didn't ask about his GCSE passes, but he did say he would hate an office job. Not everyone wants a job that's "normal", or does "normal" equate to "professional"? He probably thinks he's doing okay.

[senua]

The new "normal job" that enables two adults working FT to buy a house and support a family in reasonable comfort is a degree-qualified job or, just perhaps, a skilled trade.

Not in my experience. A lot of the skilled trades do very nicely, thank you. Especially if they are in the building trade and can DIY / get mates' rates / get trade prices to extend or improve.
A skilled tradesman who can manage their not-so-entrepreneurial colleagues has something about him/her can earn very good money.

[jonesthegirl]

Bobo Et al. The problem with governments or 'bloggers' advocating an approach, requiring high academic qualifications to access any worthwile job , is that effectively confines millons of children to the 'scrapheap'.

This obsession started by the Blair Government of getting 50% of children to University is largly to blame for the fact that 18 year olds need A levels to get a job 'answering' phones. These type jobs were available for children who were not academic but were prepared to try and show willingness . They would also have been given a chance , by just asking for one. These jobs now require a 'CV' and a interview with Human Resources, what chance does a non academic child stand , though they may be the 'best' candidate.

[BoboChic]

Indeed. The new "normal job" that enables two adults working FT to buy a house and support a family in reasonable comfort is a degree-qualified job or, just perhaps, a skilled trade.

[Badbadbunny]

This point has been brilliantly put across by Frank Field Labour MP for Birkenhead who Remarked ' Most people in real life don't aspire to their children being Doctors'. They just want 'normal' jobs for their children.

This reality is overlooked constantly on here.

The thing is that most "normal" jobs these days require relatively high levels of qualifications - even some graduates can only get jobs in call centres. The days of the old standard of "5 O levels" to get a decent job are long gone due to the dumbing down, grade inflation and competition. We have to work with the reality of the workplace, not what we'd like to see in a perfect world. To improve the chance of getting a decent job, today's kids need to get the broadest and highest range of qualifications they are able to muster.

[EricNorthmanSucks]

What some schools of is offer triple science in the same slot as double for the most able pupils.

But often there is also the option of doing triple in three slots, for pupils wanting/needing to go at a slower pace but who still want triple.

The reasoning being that triple taken slowly in three slots shouldn't prove harder than double plus, say, history. Indeed, it would take up far less of the pupils time than say, double plus art or double plus geography.

Given the way our economy is moving, we should surely attempt to provide as much basic science as possible to as many young people as possible? And I say that as a fully paid up member of the humanities division.

[disquisitiones]

Resources may indeed mean that some state schools can't offer triple science to all who were level 5+. (And indeed some kids who are capable may well choose not to do triple science if offered the opportunity.)

But the question was about capability not just resources.

In a large comprehensive school with e.g. 8 sets pupils from the top 3 or so sets would typically be capable of triple science, not just the top set. And as Eric says there are many comprehensives with such demographics which don't offer triple science at all, despite having 80+ pupils who could benefit from it each year.

In a grammar school one would expect all pupils to be capable of triple science, but (I think) there are grammars which don't offer triple science.

In most Kent secondary moderns I would expect top sets to be capable of triple science too.

[Badbadbunny]

Many schools consider kids who got level 5+ at KS2 capable of doing triple science. Triple science is not just for top sets.

Surely though it will be timetable/place dependant. If they have one set doing triple Maths limited to 30 pupils, then they'll take the top 30, or if they can offer two sets doing it, it'll be the top 60. So some years, a 5+ will be good enough, other years it won't. They'll hardly set up another triple science set and rearrange timetabling etc just because they've got one or two pupils too many - they'll just move down the least able 1/2 instead down to double science.

[disquisitiones]

Isn't it only the top sets in most schools that do 3 sciences?

Many schools consider kids who got level 5+ at KS2 capable of doing triple science. Triple science is not just for top sets.

[BoboChic]

Eric - the Kent test isn't difficult to pass. It does a good job of sorting DC which is why most families are quite laid back about some of their DC passing and others not. Where people get more worked up is when places at the superselectives (Judd and TGS) or the geographically-socially ultra desirable (Tunbridge Wells Girls, Skinners, Cranbrook) are at stake.

[BertrandRussell]

Isn't it only the top sets in most schools that do 3 sciences? Or have I got that wrong?

[EricNorthmanSucks]

bert if your DS school has so few able pupils that almost none would be capable of triple science then I can see why resources need to be considered.

Though running triple for ten is not that outlandish. I bet they run some vocational courses for fewer numbers. And your school will already have science teachers and books etc.

As am aside, are you sure there are so few who would benefit? If you are then the 11 plus exam did a remarkable job. Expertly recognising those with and without the raw ability.

In any case, your school is unusual. Most schools offering double only are not secondary moderns. They are comps. And they most definitely do have children in them, perfectly capable to benefiting from triple science.

These schools cannot defend their decision! They are clearly prejudicing their most able students. And bright children will not ' do well' in them.

[Peregrina]

Rather than deciding a deprived environment means they have low educational achievement.

Agreed, but sadly there are still teachers about who say 'What can you achieve with children like this?'

[Lurkedforever1]

I don't know Grimsby, but unless there's something in the water there I find it somewhat hard to believe none of the residents are bright. But hey, if it's a deprived area then they must all be stupid with no ambition.

And who cares what the parents ambitions are? Shouldn't the child of unambitious/ unsupportive/ uncaring/ poor parents have their horizons opened too? Rather than deciding a deprived environment means they have low educational achievement.

[Blu]

Grimsby seems to have rather a successful comprehensive offer www.theguardian.com/education/2013/sep/11/guardian-gcse-schools-grimsby-successhere

[jonesthegirl]

Deprived environments who have limited educational achievement.

[jonesthegirl]

The Chemistry point was just being flippant !.

However, there is a point to the fact what children from coastal areas and other deprived areas need is better literacy and numeracy.

I wonder how many people employed by Siemens have been employed locally. I can guess that Siemens have recruited most if not all of their staff from outside the area.

The reality is these high tech or highly qualified jobs are not what is needed/required for children living in deprived environmentwho have limited educational achievement.

This point has been brilliantly put across by Frank Field Labour MP for Birkenhead who Remarked ' Most people in real life don't aspire to their children being Doctors'. They just want 'normal' jobs for their children.

This reality is overlooked constantly on here.

[BertrandRussell]

And, while this might be news to some, a university or two........

[RalphSteadmansEye]

Mmm, yes. There are a lot of jobs in engineering, the renewable energy sector, pharmaceuticals etc etc in the Humber Estuary area.

[BertrandRussell]

"
P.S There is no demand or 'need'. for Latin Greek or triple Science in Grimsby.

There are no jobs in Grimsby needing an understanding or knowledge of Latin/Greek or Even Chemistry..."

That's all I can do.

[Peregrina]

I suspect that the really bright will probably do as well anywhere because they are able to motivate themselves. The ones I think do suffer are the average ones who don't shine in any particular area and don't really get noticed, but they haven't the confidence to push themselves.

[boys3]

There is no demand or 'need'. for......triple Science in Grimsby.

Siemens and the wider renewables sector would probably beg to differ