Interesting - separating the gifted from the well prepared
Moderators: Section Moderators, Forum Moderators
Re: Interesting - separating the gifted from the well prepar
Interestingly on the entrance test point, Nonsuch in Surrey is consulting on changing their entrance test to be just VR and comprehension. They have changed their test three times in the last five years - it was originally VR and maths, then became VR and NVR, then they added in a comprehension and now (if the consultation is successful) the NVR will be dropped. The school has apparently concluded that English related skills are a better assessment of a child's ability to cope in a grammar school environment 
-
Daogroupie
- Posts: 11107
- Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 3:01 pm
- Location: Herts
Re: Interesting - separating the gifted from the well prepar
That is fantastic. So great to hear about technology being used to introduce students to the chance to read classic literature for free instead of being used for games. Has she tried Tom Sawyer, that really is a great read, also a Little Princess and the Secret Garden.
"The school has apparently concluded that English related skills are a better assessment of a child's ability to cope in a grammar school environment " Good on them, my dd's school thinks the same. DG
"The school has apparently concluded that English related skills are a better assessment of a child's ability to cope in a grammar school environment " Good on them, my dd's school thinks the same. DG
Re: Interesting - separating the gifted from the well prepar
Cranleigh, some very interesting questions -- and yes I would see the future way forward both in education and testing being the one that you describe; it seems as though we haven't got there yet. The kind of testing I read on here that CEM will introduce into the "tutor-proof areas" is covering the same sort of skills (but far more superficially - mine took the best part of a school day) I was tested in to get into a highly selective independent senior school many moons ago. I am not so sure that they were that relevant even then, and this is probably reflected in the fact that few people went on to be outstandingly successful in any field from that particular school.
The impression I gain from this website is that highly selective British schools, at the moment, are perhaps valuing some facets of intelligence more highly than others. Abilities related to science and technology appear to me to be undervalued. Also, I think there could more cultural bias, not less, in the "tutor-proof" testing regimes which are being described on here. For example, the multiple choice Cloze tests described appear to be tests of "receptive" vocabulary. While receptive vocabulary closely correlates to certain facets of verbal intelligence, there can be other reasons why a child may not perform so well on such tests e.g. English not being their mother-tongue, reduced exposure to rich texts due to the child's home background or schooling etc.
As many people know from personal experience, teachers' judgements, and test judgements, of children's "innate ability" can be badly flawed.
I still stand by the psychology experiment which showed that children who were treated as though they had high IQ generally achieved far more than children who were treated as though they hadn't, irrespective of the actual IQ of the children concerned. Maybe this is the reason why many parents want their children to be judged as intelligent and taught with other motivated children. Perhaps everyone has the gut instinct that this will lead to the best results. Mixed ability is for the most part, with the right teacher with the right methods, going to get the most out of the greater proportion of children than consigning the vast majority to the "less intelligent" pile.
I think it is probably dangerous to separate "the gifted" from the well-prepared. Longer-term the well-prepared person is going to go further than the "gifted". Maybe the gifted are a gift to the school, particularly if it's an "all-round" gift, as they won't need very good teaching to produce stunning results, if motivated.
Beyond school I don't think any of these labels are useful though. An 11plus exam requiring "all-round" ability could easily result in a truly gifted child failing e.g. the child with only average vocabulary but a huge bent in mathematics could probably fail quite a few 11plus tests. I can personally think of someone with a DPhil from Cambridge who falls into this category. Personally I would avoid a school that prized English language skills above everything else! I might also cynically think that they had a not particularly good track record in improving the literacy of an otherwise bright child, and were thinking of their GCSE results rather than the children they were selecting (and not selecting)!
The impression I gain from this website is that highly selective British schools, at the moment, are perhaps valuing some facets of intelligence more highly than others. Abilities related to science and technology appear to me to be undervalued. Also, I think there could more cultural bias, not less, in the "tutor-proof" testing regimes which are being described on here. For example, the multiple choice Cloze tests described appear to be tests of "receptive" vocabulary. While receptive vocabulary closely correlates to certain facets of verbal intelligence, there can be other reasons why a child may not perform so well on such tests e.g. English not being their mother-tongue, reduced exposure to rich texts due to the child's home background or schooling etc.
As many people know from personal experience, teachers' judgements, and test judgements, of children's "innate ability" can be badly flawed.
I still stand by the psychology experiment which showed that children who were treated as though they had high IQ generally achieved far more than children who were treated as though they hadn't, irrespective of the actual IQ of the children concerned. Maybe this is the reason why many parents want their children to be judged as intelligent and taught with other motivated children. Perhaps everyone has the gut instinct that this will lead to the best results. Mixed ability is for the most part, with the right teacher with the right methods, going to get the most out of the greater proportion of children than consigning the vast majority to the "less intelligent" pile.
I think it is probably dangerous to separate "the gifted" from the well-prepared. Longer-term the well-prepared person is going to go further than the "gifted". Maybe the gifted are a gift to the school, particularly if it's an "all-round" gift, as they won't need very good teaching to produce stunning results, if motivated.
Beyond school I don't think any of these labels are useful though. An 11plus exam requiring "all-round" ability could easily result in a truly gifted child failing e.g. the child with only average vocabulary but a huge bent in mathematics could probably fail quite a few 11plus tests. I can personally think of someone with a DPhil from Cambridge who falls into this category. Personally I would avoid a school that prized English language skills above everything else! I might also cynically think that they had a not particularly good track record in improving the literacy of an otherwise bright child, and were thinking of their GCSE results rather than the children they were selecting (and not selecting)!
Last edited by mystery on Wed Feb 20, 2013 9:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Interesting - separating the gifted from the well prepar
Not sure which camp I am in on this one, as I know plenty of super prepped middle class kids of limited ability who are versed in the classics but cannot apply basic mathematical concepts, but equally I think that basic written and analytical skills are critical in the long term. OT I know but DG I thought both your DDs went to DAO?Daogroupie wrote:Good on them, my dd's school thinks the same. DG
mad?
Re: Interesting - separating the gifted from the well prepar
I've got one a bit like that - it's not that he hasn't got an extensive vocabulary, it just that as his prefered reading material is scientific or technical rather than literary he doesn't naturally have the right vocabulary for a typical 11+ test. So for example he'd know striation, impetus, inertia, propulsion, centripetal or metamorphosis but probably not melodrama, cliche, affable, ambivalent, amicable or ebullient.mystery wrote:the child with only average vocabulary but a huge bent in mathematics could probably fail quite a few 11plus tests!
Re: Interesting - separating the gifted from the well prepar
Exactly! The selection is only as good as the test, and a lot of these tests are rubbish when it comes down to it.
Re: Interesting - separating the gifted from the well prepar
I suspect MgnMum and DAOGroupie and others keen to promote quality literature that the number of children who are voracious and passionate appreciators of the classics etc are, I fear, vanishingly small (and ever dwindling) - whether through technology or in traditional book form. I was given a copy of Pride and Prejudice by a grandmother aged 7 - I was too young to understand the book and mistakenly assumed that it was about a man and woman called 'Pride and Prudence' as the bright cover depicted a courting couple under a bright parasol. 
Fact was I was wide open to the classics when I found them. I doubt that would have happened now I'd have wanted & asked for Barbie DVDS I suspect.
I suspect classical literature will sadly not survive the Durham CEM.
What I think is interesting is it's implied in the article and attached links that 'gifted' children have an intrinsic drive and will let their unique interests motivate them. It's as if they believe recalcitrant and stubborn or even - heaven forbid - lazy gifted children don't exist and this is why they deserve a special pathway? The high achievers are undeserving?
Mystery good points about the 'gifted' not requiring much nurturing in order to ramp up league table results.
It does seem to me that society doesn't value the high attainers and hard workers it is almost like they have something tarnished and immoral about them? Why should applaud those that sweat blood and tears to get good grades? It's as if we find such diligence distasteful? If I can develop my intellect over time and become (for example) a much better writer shouldn't that be applauded? I've shown personal discipline after all. Cognitive ability perhaps trumps hard work as those that possess it are smart enough to know that money won't make them happy? Bankers who toil for filthy lucre are thought less worthy than brilliant scientists probing the nature of the universe or dedicated doctors etc?
Will the Durham CEM penalise those hard workers who maybe can't apply the necessary logic to solve maths problems for example?
Psychologists have commented that those tutored beyond their ability/have no right to such gifted programmes are setting themselves up for problems later on. They should accept their lack of natural intellectual horsepower & are more than likely to get burned out in time. They are so less deserving of a top university education that those that school has always come easily too? Those 'over tutored' and prepped for the top independent schools should be shunned? Many schools seem to think so and write as much on their websites these days. Despite the work of Dweck, Gladwell, and Syed etc many believe IQ tests tell all and 'IQ 'just can't be developed - they don't see intelligence as composite and ascribe high status to only a certain aspect. I am always amazed that more parents/teachers don't see their children's intellectual prowess grow over time? - I see it with children I've taught. Attainment can improve they say but what I've just described is all but impossible.
Amber I suspect you'd agree with these comments that follow the Gifted article I linked:
The need is not necessarily for gifted programs but for more gifted teachers. A gifted teacher can balance the needs of students with varied abilities and backgrounds. And a truly heterogeneous class, well taught and well managed, can be incredibly enriching for all students. Along with that, though, schools need an much better mechanism for dealing with students who present discipline problems, and when necessary removing them from the classroom. A single misbehaving student can derail the plans of even the most gifted teachers, because the student demands so much attention. It's a tough call, because sometimes a very bright student can present a discipline problem - but again thats' the virtue of having gifted and experienced teachers, who have the skill and discernment properly to assess such misbehaviour. We need better teachers, we need to pay them respectable salaries, and we need to find a way to create curricula that simultaneously sets standards but allows gifted teachers the freedom to address the needs of their individual students.
(Don't Finnish teachers all have to have a Masters degree officially?).
Another view on a similar theme - be interested in your thoughts on this, Amber:
I'm brilliant teaching one-on-one. Excellent at small groups, but when you get into these larger and larger class sizes you just cant personalize and pay attention the way you can with smaller groups.
its not a matter of training, but of group and size dynamics.
which is why the privileged will pay for the smaller class sizes or one-on-one.
As well with misbehaving students, I've seen many amazing teachers assess problem students, but not given the support to remove them from the classroom.
the system now is stacked against teachers, no matter how good they are.
Surely the truly gifted, child prodigies etc are rare enough for it not to be viable to open a gifted school at all? Gifted as described in the article is being on the 97th percentile and apparently there are disproportionate amounts in certain districts in Manhattan? I know a few 'gifted' schools more generally in the US some serving a local suburban (but wealthy population) too. Many parents seem to make hefty donations but that may be by the by.
Someone like this sounds truly gifted to me but surely there must be only one born very rarely indeed?:
I would be lying to you if I said the difference between me and other kids was due to or achievable by coaching, or anywhere near as small as you seem to think it was. I could master in five minutes what took other kids a year. Grownups used to give me puzzles that none of them could solve, to see me solve them. Or ask me seemingly unanswerable questions, like how many 100 year olds there are in the United States, and I'd answer them correctly -- not on the basis of knowledge, but of intuition. That strangeness never left me: there was something different about my brain, and still is. When I was given an IQ test, I got every question right, but I don't think it's just a matter of IQ. My best guess is that I have mild hypomania (redundant, I know). It's as if I have a built-in supply of study drugs.
And I think Josh Hill who adds his comments to the article may have come up with the solution to the unfairness and problems of selective education itself:
Why not just offer three sections -- slow, normal, accelerated -- and let parents put their children wherever they want, on the condition that no allowances will be made if they can't keep up with the class?
It avoids the unfairness of the test nonsense and gives every child an opportunity to learn at his level. And it will allow parents to vote with their feet and choose rigor over the dumbed-down teach-to-the-bottom, teach-to-the-test treacle that is destroying American education and with it, the American future.
Fact was I was wide open to the classics when I found them. I doubt that would have happened now I'd have wanted & asked for Barbie DVDS I suspect. I suspect classical literature will sadly not survive the Durham CEM.
What I think is interesting is it's implied in the article and attached links that 'gifted' children have an intrinsic drive and will let their unique interests motivate them. It's as if they believe recalcitrant and stubborn or even - heaven forbid - lazy gifted children don't exist and this is why they deserve a special pathway? The high achievers are undeserving?
Mystery good points about the 'gifted' not requiring much nurturing in order to ramp up league table results.
It does seem to me that society doesn't value the high attainers and hard workers it is almost like they have something tarnished and immoral about them? Why should applaud those that sweat blood and tears to get good grades? It's as if we find such diligence distasteful? If I can develop my intellect over time and become (for example) a much better writer shouldn't that be applauded? I've shown personal discipline after all. Cognitive ability perhaps trumps hard work as those that possess it are smart enough to know that money won't make them happy? Bankers who toil for filthy lucre are thought less worthy than brilliant scientists probing the nature of the universe or dedicated doctors etc?
Will the Durham CEM penalise those hard workers who maybe can't apply the necessary logic to solve maths problems for example?
Psychologists have commented that those tutored beyond their ability/have no right to such gifted programmes are setting themselves up for problems later on. They should accept their lack of natural intellectual horsepower & are more than likely to get burned out in time. They are so less deserving of a top university education that those that school has always come easily too? Those 'over tutored' and prepped for the top independent schools should be shunned? Many schools seem to think so and write as much on their websites these days. Despite the work of Dweck, Gladwell, and Syed etc many believe IQ tests tell all and 'IQ 'just can't be developed - they don't see intelligence as composite and ascribe high status to only a certain aspect. I am always amazed that more parents/teachers don't see their children's intellectual prowess grow over time? - I see it with children I've taught. Attainment can improve they say but what I've just described is all but impossible.
Amber I suspect you'd agree with these comments that follow the Gifted article I linked:
The need is not necessarily for gifted programs but for more gifted teachers. A gifted teacher can balance the needs of students with varied abilities and backgrounds. And a truly heterogeneous class, well taught and well managed, can be incredibly enriching for all students. Along with that, though, schools need an much better mechanism for dealing with students who present discipline problems, and when necessary removing them from the classroom. A single misbehaving student can derail the plans of even the most gifted teachers, because the student demands so much attention. It's a tough call, because sometimes a very bright student can present a discipline problem - but again thats' the virtue of having gifted and experienced teachers, who have the skill and discernment properly to assess such misbehaviour. We need better teachers, we need to pay them respectable salaries, and we need to find a way to create curricula that simultaneously sets standards but allows gifted teachers the freedom to address the needs of their individual students.
(Don't Finnish teachers all have to have a Masters degree officially?).
Another view on a similar theme - be interested in your thoughts on this, Amber:
I'm brilliant teaching one-on-one. Excellent at small groups, but when you get into these larger and larger class sizes you just cant personalize and pay attention the way you can with smaller groups.
its not a matter of training, but of group and size dynamics.
which is why the privileged will pay for the smaller class sizes or one-on-one.
As well with misbehaving students, I've seen many amazing teachers assess problem students, but not given the support to remove them from the classroom.
the system now is stacked against teachers, no matter how good they are.
Surely the truly gifted, child prodigies etc are rare enough for it not to be viable to open a gifted school at all? Gifted as described in the article is being on the 97th percentile and apparently there are disproportionate amounts in certain districts in Manhattan? I know a few 'gifted' schools more generally in the US some serving a local suburban (but wealthy population) too. Many parents seem to make hefty donations but that may be by the by.
Someone like this sounds truly gifted to me but surely there must be only one born very rarely indeed?:
I would be lying to you if I said the difference between me and other kids was due to or achievable by coaching, or anywhere near as small as you seem to think it was. I could master in five minutes what took other kids a year. Grownups used to give me puzzles that none of them could solve, to see me solve them. Or ask me seemingly unanswerable questions, like how many 100 year olds there are in the United States, and I'd answer them correctly -- not on the basis of knowledge, but of intuition. That strangeness never left me: there was something different about my brain, and still is. When I was given an IQ test, I got every question right, but I don't think it's just a matter of IQ. My best guess is that I have mild hypomania (redundant, I know). It's as if I have a built-in supply of study drugs.
And I think Josh Hill who adds his comments to the article may have come up with the solution to the unfairness and problems of selective education itself:
Why not just offer three sections -- slow, normal, accelerated -- and let parents put their children wherever they want, on the condition that no allowances will be made if they can't keep up with the class?
It avoids the unfairness of the test nonsense and gives every child an opportunity to learn at his level. And it will allow parents to vote with their feet and choose rigor over the dumbed-down teach-to-the-bottom, teach-to-the-test treacle that is destroying American education and with it, the American future.
