A couple of questions that many might be afraid to ask
Moderators: Section Moderators, Forum Moderators
Re: A couple of questions that many might be afraid to ask
Can’t agree re. teachers, you certainly get good and bad at both, and indeed you frequently find that the teachers at a comprehensive or an upper school have made a deliberate choice to teach in that sector and hence are extremely committed to it.I just think Grammar Schools are a safer bet in terms of teachers (including their morale) and probably behaviour.
Behaviour, maybe. I should imagine it’s much harder to teach in an environment where there is a big ability range and to ensure that DCs at both the bottom and top ends are equally engaged.
One difference I have observed is that the pace of work is much quicker at GS – a teacher friend said she had to completely re-do her lesson plans when she moved from an upper school to a GS as what would have lasted a full lesson at the former took her GS class about 10-15 minutes because all the class quickly picked up the principles behind what she was explaining (in maths). An advantage of this is that it enables the good teachers to allow a lesson to go off at a tangent occasionally and follow an interesting digression in the knowledge that they have time to get back on track.
Re: A couple of questions that many might be afraid to ask
The problem with trying to compare different types of school is that most people can only talk about their own experience. Not all Grammars are run along the same principles and neither are all non- grammars and teachers vary across the board.
A good school needs an effective head so start there. They will usually ensure a broadly committed, effective staff. I disagree that Grammars are for the hard working motivated children. Personally I do feel that the Grammar my sons attend is more effective with the academically able but lazy children. Probably due to assumption that having passed the test they must be capable plus the league table expectation of having to produce high results is an added factor.
I base my assumptions on the way the local comprehensive has dealt with a friend's son compared to what is being done for one of ours and the fact that the Comprehensive has been without good leadership for the last two years. Both similar children. One who is only now being helped because he is due to sit GCSEs this year and is at risk of not getting Cs. The other who has some years to go but the school obviously do not want him to fall behind through lack of work ethic and expect higher results. This is pretty much my own experience of my school days so was something I was looking for.
However I do know that had we been living near a different comprehensive then my opinions may have been different (there is one in our area that is outstanding as is our Grammar) plus a different Grammar school may not have been prepared to put in so much effort with our son.
A good school needs an effective head so start there. They will usually ensure a broadly committed, effective staff. I disagree that Grammars are for the hard working motivated children. Personally I do feel that the Grammar my sons attend is more effective with the academically able but lazy children. Probably due to assumption that having passed the test they must be capable plus the league table expectation of having to produce high results is an added factor.
I base my assumptions on the way the local comprehensive has dealt with a friend's son compared to what is being done for one of ours and the fact that the Comprehensive has been without good leadership for the last two years. Both similar children. One who is only now being helped because he is due to sit GCSEs this year and is at risk of not getting Cs. The other who has some years to go but the school obviously do not want him to fall behind through lack of work ethic and expect higher results. This is pretty much my own experience of my school days so was something I was looking for.
However I do know that had we been living near a different comprehensive then my opinions may have been different (there is one in our area that is outstanding as is our Grammar) plus a different Grammar school may not have been prepared to put in so much effort with our son.
Re: A couple of questions that many might be afraid to ask
It's an interesting thread because I've been aware that my reasons for wanting my children to go to grammar are not necessarily the normal ones.
My son has recently passed the 11+ in Kent. We have always raised him to value thought and knowledge and education, and he has responded by becoming extremely inquisitive and able in maths and science, as well as a wide enthusiastic reader and creative in other areas.
I want him to go to a grammar school mainly because I want him to be able to spend seven of the most formative years of his life in an atmosphere that supports the same values. I want him to feel good about being smart, about extending his intellectual curiosity. I want him to be around other people and make connections with them - both teachers and fellow students - who also share those values. Mostly, I want the presumption of those values to seem NORMAL to him, from day to day throughout his education.
Which is not to say that this is impossible in a comprehensive school, but it depends which one and where. What I DON'T want is for him to be marginalised, ostracised or bullied because of the things that we've raised him to believe are actually good about himself; or to feel he has to hide those things and assume different values, at least outwardly, to fit in.
All the stuff about getting lots of As at A level is peripheral as far as I'm concerned. I don't really care if he doesn't go to university, if the right thing for however his life pans out lies elsewhere. It's about now, and the right place to support his growing intellect and personality now.
My son has recently passed the 11+ in Kent. We have always raised him to value thought and knowledge and education, and he has responded by becoming extremely inquisitive and able in maths and science, as well as a wide enthusiastic reader and creative in other areas.
I want him to go to a grammar school mainly because I want him to be able to spend seven of the most formative years of his life in an atmosphere that supports the same values. I want him to feel good about being smart, about extending his intellectual curiosity. I want him to be around other people and make connections with them - both teachers and fellow students - who also share those values. Mostly, I want the presumption of those values to seem NORMAL to him, from day to day throughout his education.
Which is not to say that this is impossible in a comprehensive school, but it depends which one and where. What I DON'T want is for him to be marginalised, ostracised or bullied because of the things that we've raised him to believe are actually good about himself; or to feel he has to hide those things and assume different values, at least outwardly, to fit in.
All the stuff about getting lots of As at A level is peripheral as far as I'm concerned. I don't really care if he doesn't go to university, if the right thing for however his life pans out lies elsewhere. It's about now, and the right place to support his growing intellect and personality now.
Re: A couple of questions that many might be afraid to ask
Nature vs nurture is a very complex issue and I don't think any of us are in a place to make a definitive judgment about something that is still so under debate. I'm probably similar to you in that I tend to think a lot of people overemphasize the idea of natural talent and underestimate all the factors behind working to success. Many of these are to do with informal learning in the earliest years. People often don't take this into account, or confine themselves unrealistically to the "measurable" side of things. ("Child A and Child B were both raised by middle income families, had French tutoring from the age of four and went to the same school. Now Child A speaks French fluently and Child B doesn't - it must be natural talent!")TheDirector wrote:I regret to say that I'm probably in a minority on this board because I don't attach much weight to "natural talent". Those who do might wish to read "Bounce" by Matthew Syed
With young children this is especially difficult because engaging with their curiosity is everything. Yeah you can feed the same stuff into two children; one will retain it and the other won't - because one is interested and the other isn't. But this is a very difficult area because children are interested in different things, at different times, and the "right" way to engage them is different for every child. I think this has so much to do with fluid sensitivity and judgment calls on the part of the adults responsible, that it's impossible to measure.
I also think a huge part of education and learning is simply about memory. And this, like curiosity, is hugely affected by lifestyle factors such as exposure to television and mass media.
Having said all that, I think there's no doubt that some children simply have, and will always have, fairly limited abilities in some areas. Sometimes this can be due to physical factors - in sport or music, for example. But even in the abstract intellection required of grammar school maths candidates, there will be some children who just... don't... get it. Good, appropriate education may well get them to a middling rather than base level, where any slowness in the area doesn't get in the way of their life chances too much. And that's a great thing and something education should be prized for. But for many, it won't achieve more than that with all the tutoring in the world.
I have just added that book to my Amazon list however. Another one you might be interested in that takes a similar line is GENIUS EXPLAINED, by Michael J. A. Howe. He looks at the information available about the early lives of "geniuses" such as Mozart and Einstein and challenges the idea that their exceptional abilities were born and not made. Well worth a read.
-
- Posts: 12894
- Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2006 9:51 am
- Location: The Seaside
Re: A couple of questions that many might be afraid to ask
Sorry it is all in the genes.
If you don't have the right ones, blame your parents
If you don't have the right ones, blame your parents
Re: A couple of questions that many might be afraid to ask
i totally agree - its important to find the right school for your child now - no child is the same so its important to look at lots - i am happy that dd2 has found one that seems to fit her personality and curiosity very well - the same didnt happen for dd1 - but that happens - some dc's fit better latter in life.Yurgen wrote:All the stuff about getting lots of As at A level is peripheral as far as I'm concerned. I don't really care if he doesn't go to university, if the right thing for however his life pans out lies elsewhere. It's about now, and the right place to support his growing intellect and personality now.
Re: A couple of questions that many might be afraid to ask
I've been reading widely about the heritability of intelligence & intelligence in general. I believe intelligence isn't unitary, the relevant habits of mind are many and most can be cultivated. What one person can learn most can learn, the brain is like a muscle which can be expanded. I am not saying everyone can get to GS if they work hard but believe 'intelligence' can increase with the right experience, encouragement and self belief.
I have friends in London who take their children to Kumon to do maths aged 4. The children are given work which they can easily achieve and they seem to grow in confidence. They find that they are ahead of their peers and this sense of pride, confidence, self discipline and understanding grows. By they time they are in Y5 their confidence is tangible and they are all in the top set. Are they any more intelligent than another child who hasn't practiced in a similar way? (I am not a particular advocate for Kumon by the way, just giving an example.)
Going into the primary schools in the past and meeting with teachers it's interesting to see that often these sort of children are actually treated as if they are more intelligent and in time it seems they almost become so. I've noticed that if a child is working way ahead of its peers at 10, even in just one area, a teacher likely sees the child as 'bright'. So, if they are having difficultly with reading comprehension and a below average reader a 'reason' is often found. Even if the early positive effects of Kumon etc wear off, other excuses for dips in performance will often be found. Their 'brightness' will follow them into all other areas of the curriculum if you like and becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. This 'bright' child will probably be seen as not filling their potential if they don't do as well going forward.
Conversely, if you have a late summer born for example, who has always been a bit slow on the uptake, especially in high status subjects like maths or English and who suddenly goes on to do well they are unlikely to be re-categorised as 'bright'. They are likely to be seen as over achieving and a better academic performance put down to a surge in effort. They are perhaps the sort to struggle at a Grammar?
It's an interesting subject and I will take a look at 'Bounce'.
I have friends in London who take their children to Kumon to do maths aged 4. The children are given work which they can easily achieve and they seem to grow in confidence. They find that they are ahead of their peers and this sense of pride, confidence, self discipline and understanding grows. By they time they are in Y5 their confidence is tangible and they are all in the top set. Are they any more intelligent than another child who hasn't practiced in a similar way? (I am not a particular advocate for Kumon by the way, just giving an example.)
Going into the primary schools in the past and meeting with teachers it's interesting to see that often these sort of children are actually treated as if they are more intelligent and in time it seems they almost become so. I've noticed that if a child is working way ahead of its peers at 10, even in just one area, a teacher likely sees the child as 'bright'. So, if they are having difficultly with reading comprehension and a below average reader a 'reason' is often found. Even if the early positive effects of Kumon etc wear off, other excuses for dips in performance will often be found. Their 'brightness' will follow them into all other areas of the curriculum if you like and becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. This 'bright' child will probably be seen as not filling their potential if they don't do as well going forward.
Conversely, if you have a late summer born for example, who has always been a bit slow on the uptake, especially in high status subjects like maths or English and who suddenly goes on to do well they are unlikely to be re-categorised as 'bright'. They are likely to be seen as over achieving and a better academic performance put down to a surge in effort. They are perhaps the sort to struggle at a Grammar?
It's an interesting subject and I will take a look at 'Bounce'.
-
- Posts: 12894
- Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2006 9:51 am
- Location: The Seaside
Re: A couple of questions that many might be afraid to ask
much of the claim that nurture can make a difference is not supported by siblings.
They hopefully are nurtured similarly but will only have (on average) 50% of genes in common. Can be head bangingly irritating when one child can just easily "get it" (just like one parent or relative) and another can't (just like another relative ).
Trouble is there is nowt you can do your about genes except make sure choose you your parents carefully..
They hopefully are nurtured similarly but will only have (on average) 50% of genes in common. Can be head bangingly irritating when one child can just easily "get it" (just like one parent or relative) and another can't (just like another relative ).
Trouble is there is nowt you can do your about genes except make sure choose you your parents carefully..
Re: A couple of questions that many might be afraid to ask
Hi Herman
I used to think as you do but all the developments in cognitive science in the last few years don't back up your example. Intelligence is composite and expandable. There are genetic influences on intelligence but these are not large, certainly nothing like as large as previously thought, and not a life sentence.
My Maths isn't strong, my mothers maths isn't strong. Possibly I have her 'genes'. This stopped me from trying in my school days. What was the point? I'd reached my limit. I was wrong, I believe I could have got an A* at GCSE with the right attitude and determination.
Lauren Resnick has said 'Students, who over an extended period of time are treated as if they are intelligent, actually become more so. If they are taught demanding content, and are expected to explain and find connections..they learn more and learn more quickly.' Ability really doesn't have a ceiling unless there are learning impairments and even then students can improve.
I guess when the resources are limited arguments get more heated about IQ etc. Who would best benefit from a Grammar school place/a child with a higher IQ deserves a place etc?
The 11 plus exams don't test for resilience and tenacity. I remember securing top grades in the subjects that I wanted to do well in. I studied like mad for them and did better than my cleverer peers. Or were they actually cleverer in the first place...Hmm. I'd certainly been conditioned to think so.
I used to think as you do but all the developments in cognitive science in the last few years don't back up your example. Intelligence is composite and expandable. There are genetic influences on intelligence but these are not large, certainly nothing like as large as previously thought, and not a life sentence.
My Maths isn't strong, my mothers maths isn't strong. Possibly I have her 'genes'. This stopped me from trying in my school days. What was the point? I'd reached my limit. I was wrong, I believe I could have got an A* at GCSE with the right attitude and determination.
Lauren Resnick has said 'Students, who over an extended period of time are treated as if they are intelligent, actually become more so. If they are taught demanding content, and are expected to explain and find connections..they learn more and learn more quickly.' Ability really doesn't have a ceiling unless there are learning impairments and even then students can improve.
I guess when the resources are limited arguments get more heated about IQ etc. Who would best benefit from a Grammar school place/a child with a higher IQ deserves a place etc?
The 11 plus exams don't test for resilience and tenacity. I remember securing top grades in the subjects that I wanted to do well in. I studied like mad for them and did better than my cleverer peers. Or were they actually cleverer in the first place...Hmm. I'd certainly been conditioned to think so.
-
- Posts: 1061
- Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 5:04 pm
Re: A couple of questions that many might be afraid to ask
Too late for my kids!!!hermanmunster wrote:Trouble is there is nowt you can do your about genes except make sure choose you your parents carefully..