|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Educational elitism
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Helen-Eva:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Everyone has their idea of who is more vulnerable. In Russ's view, it is clever kids from middle-class families.
Depends what you mean by "vulnerable". A bright middle class kid in a comprehensive can be VERY vulnerable indeed to attack from the other kids. Happily it was only my maths test papers they jumped up and down on.
A lone bright middle-class kid will be vulnerable, just as any minority will be. Bright working-class kids can be very uncomfortable in grammar schools and my m-i-l and her brother can attest to that. If a school accepts children from all classes and abilities then these circumstances can be minimised.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Helen-Eva
Shipmate
# 15025
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
A lone bright middle-class kid will be vulnerable, just as any minority will be. Bright working-class kids can be very uncomfortable in grammar schools and my m-i-l and her brother can attest to that. If a school accepts children from all classes and abilities then these circumstances can be minimised.
My comprehensive was in a reasonably affluent area yet was by no means a safe space for the bright. My grammar school was in a less affluent area. but was safe (and my best friend at grammar lived in a council house). I stick to my belief that only in a selective school will there be a high enough percentage of bright kids to form a protective mass.
--------------------
I thought the radio 3 announcer said "Weber" but it turned out to be Webern. Story of my life.
Posts: 637 | From: London, hopefully in a theatre or concert hall, more likely at work | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
...which is the more basic right - to choose to spend time with those who lift you up, or to choose not to spend time with those who drag you down.
But it seems to me that this is quite an unpleasant - unloving - way of thinking about 11 year old children and/or encouraging your child to think about their peers.
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Helen-Eva:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
A lone bright middle-class kid will be vulnerable, just as any minority will be. Bright working-class kids can be very uncomfortable in grammar schools and my m-i-l and her brother can attest to that. If a school accepts children from all classes and abilities then these circumstances can be minimised.
My comprehensive was in a reasonably affluent area yet was by no means a safe space for the bright. My grammar school was in a less affluent area. but was safe (and my best friend at grammar lived in a council house). I stick to my belief that only in a selective school will there be a high enough percentage of bright kids to form a protective mass.
I expect your friend was safer in a selective school was your friend safer outside school? Did s/he have to stay indoors to avoid bullying and the like?
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
I attended a comprehensive school and was near the top of the year. I got bullied. A lot. But the arseholes in question were also pretty bright, indeed the vast majority of them were in the same top sets as I was and would certainly have passed the 11+ and were from largely middle-class backgrounds. What made my school unsafe wasn't the presence of less capable, working class kids, it was my peers.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Helen-Eva
Shipmate
# 15025
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I expect your friend was safer in a selective school was your friend safer outside school? Did s/he have to stay indoors to avoid bullying and the like?
Mostly. But then her big brother was a miner then and is a builder now and might have been a good defence!
--------------------
I thought the radio 3 announcer said "Weber" but it turned out to be Webern. Story of my life.
Posts: 637 | From: London, hopefully in a theatre or concert hall, more likely at work | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Helen-Eva:
I stick to my belief that only in a selective school will there be a high enough percentage of bright kids to form a protective mass.
Of course that's going to depend upon how you define "bright kids", and how many people are needed to form "a protective mass".
I like to think of myself as one of the bright kids at school, and I can attest that in my comprehensive school I had 3-4 good friends who were also "bright kids", plus at least twice that many more who I knew well but (for various reasons) wouldn't call good friends. That's more than 15 "bright kids" in a single year intake, plus a lot of other kids who were brighter than average. Is that not a reasonable number? Enough to form a chess club at least, to meet during the lunch break away from potential bullies. Oh, and that was from a yearly intake of about 150.
It meant that in any one form there was an average of 3-4 bright kids, so statistics would suggest some forms where there was just one bright kid. Which might present more opportunities for the bullies - but there were very few times when we were in those form groups (especially without a teacher present as well), since subjects were setted so the more able pupils in a subject were in the same classes.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I attended a comprehensive school and was near the top of the year. I got bullied. A lot. But the arseholes in question were also pretty bright, indeed the vast majority of them were in the same top sets as I was and would certainly have passed the 11+ and were from largely middle-class backgrounds. What made my school unsafe wasn't the presence of less capable, working class kids, it was my peers.
And I'd suggest a head teacher who wouldn't admit to the problem and do something about it.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Helen-Eva
Shipmate
# 15025
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Helen-Eva:
I stick to my belief that only in a selective school will there be a high enough percentage of bright kids to form a protective mass.
Of course that's going to depend upon how you define "bright kids", and how many people are needed to form "a protective mass".
I must confess I'm thinking of the top 1% by IQ (or whatever crude measure of capability one uses) rather than the top 10%, so by definition in a 150 intake comp there won't be more than 1-2 per year. My thinking is that these 1% kids will be the ones who, if supported, can go on to challenge the public school kids for the top places in public life and make our society more diverse.
--------------------
I thought the radio 3 announcer said "Weber" but it turned out to be Webern. Story of my life.
Posts: 637 | From: London, hopefully in a theatre or concert hall, more likely at work | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
I'm certainly not in the 1% - though possibly not far off (I wonder what percentage of people obtain a PhD, less than 10% I'm sure). There was one significantly brighter kid in my year, who went to read physics at Cambridge (Kings college IIRC) sitting the necessary extra exams to gain entry, and another who went to Imperial. I can say that those of us in the top 10% admired our brighter peers, and though not in their intellectual league would have formed a ring or nerds around them should bullying have been an issue. So, I still don't think selection makes much difference for the 1% in regard to bullying. The biggest effect is surely the teachers and the tolerance they have for bullying (in mine, that tolerance was very low).
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Helen-Eva
Shipmate
# 15025
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I'm certainly not in the 1% - though possibly not far off (I wonder what percentage of people obtain a PhD, less than 10% I'm sure). There was one significantly brighter kid in my year, who went to read physics at Cambridge (Kings college IIRC) sitting the necessary extra exams to gain entry, and another who went to Imperial. I can say that those of us in the top 10% admired our brighter peers, and though not in their intellectual league would have formed a ring or nerds around them should bullying have been an issue. So, I still don't think selection makes much difference for the 1% in regard to bullying. The biggest effect is surely the teachers and the tolerance they have for bullying (in mine, that tolerance was very low).
I wish I'd gone to your school...
--------------------
I thought the radio 3 announcer said "Weber" but it turned out to be Webern. Story of my life.
Posts: 637 | From: London, hopefully in a theatre or concert hall, more likely at work | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
I went to a private school on a scholarship. I was bullied. I don't see why grammar schools would be different.
Bullies are like woodlice. They lurk under anything.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I went to a private school on a scholarship. I was bullied.
You are me and I claim my five pounds.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
And I'd suggest a head teacher who wouldn't admit to the problem and do something about it.
Let's just say that, from the victim's point of view, the "no blame" approach to bullying does very little to help. Largely, though, there's not a lot teachers can do when kids decide to be shitty to each other and it largely stops short of assault and is mostly done discreetly.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Everyone has their idea of who is more vulnerable. In Russ's view, it is clever kids from middle-income families.
You're probably just winding me up here, but I'll fall for it.
I haven't said anything at all about class or income.
I"d agree that such children may have particular vulnerabilities - noting that others' responses to your comment have taken it to refer to bullying. Those who are noticeably cleverer or more middle-class than the rest of their school may well be prone to being bullied.
But in my lexicon you have to be vulnerable to something. E.g. young men are at greater risk of death by suicide than women. Or, some of us are more vulnerable to pride, others to sloth or envy.
The usage that divorces vulnerability from any measurable or observable risk factor leads to the word becoming a mere expression of sympathy.
Taking gender as the easiest example, men are more likely to die young, cope less well with pain, and arguably face greater internal conflict between their programming and their ideals. Whether men are better-off or worse-off than women in a cosmic sense is a value judgment to which there is no empirically or logically right answer. It depends entirely on what weight you choose to give to the different ways in which male and female experience differs.
You're free to sympathise unequally with the particular issues that men and women face. Maybe everyone does.
But it's not true that everyone deems one gender to be cosmically disadvantaged and then uses that judgment as a prism to work out which side they should be on for every issue under the sun.
Some of us don't work like that.
Some of us reject the polarised partisan politicised mindset where everything is a triumph or an outrage depending on whether your side gains more or less resources than the other side.
Some of us want a society where people recognise the rights and freedoms of those they don't sympathise with.
Your (probably deliberate, but how can I tell) mischaracterisation of my views paints me as the very thing I'm opposing in Dafyd's worldview (which I'm trying to give him the opportunity to distance himself from, but so far he's declining to do so).
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
I think there are some additional structural issues with schools. All of the high schools here are comprehensives. (There are a couple of small fundamentalist religious private schools, and I'm leaving them out). The construction of the city has been deliberate: mix high end housing on large lots with duplexes, fourplexes, apartment blocks. All of the high schools are allowed to draw from anywhere in the city as well. Bus passes are given to any student who lives more than 1 km from a school. They can travel to any school in the city and be registered there. This is a deliberate attempt to integrate schools with people from all walks of life. School curriculum and policies are provincial and imposes, with local school boards required to meet the standards. This includes behavioural standards. I'm not saying there's no racism or bullying, but the policies and enforcement is clear, with appeals beyond schools to directors of education for the districts very straightforward. There are also police liaison officers attached to each school.
-- I get that in the UK, schools are much more autonomous, exclusive to areas, uniforms, class conscious etc.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
I'm really puzzled by the use of the language of "rights and freedoms" when it comes to the provision of state education. You have the right to set up your own (selective) school if you want. You don't have the right to demand the state pay for it. One of the features of state education is that, yes, the public, via their elected representatives at local and national level, have a say in the education of all children, not just their own, because it's their money that's being spent.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
One of the features of state education is that, yes, the public, via their elected representatives at local and national level, have a say in the education of all children, not just their own, because it's their money that's being spent.
Right. And the public has a say in the provision of NHS healthcare because they're paying for it, but we can nevertheless have a discussion including "rights and freedoms" about whether it is reasonable for the NHS to refuse treatment to smokers and fat people.
It doesn't mean that the right to be a fat smoker automatically wins the discussion, but it's reasonable to talk about it.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Your (probably deliberate, but how can I tell) mischaracterisation of my views paints me as the very thing I'm opposing in Dafyd's worldview (which I'm trying to give him the opportunity to distance himself from, but so far he's declining to do so).
That is not an accurate description of what you're opposing in my worldview.
And you have no idea whom I do or do not sympathise with. Not that I think sympathy is a bad thing.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
One of the features of state education is that, yes, the public, via their elected representatives at local and national level, have a say in the education of all children, not just their own, because it's their money that's being spent.
Right. And the public has a say in the provision of NHS healthcare because they're paying for it, but we can nevertheless have a discussion including "rights and freedoms" about whether it is reasonable for the NHS to refuse treatment to smokers and fat people.
It doesn't mean that the right to be a fat smoker automatically wins the discussion, but it's reasonable to talk about it.
That's not comparable, because no-one is suggesting denying any children an education, and no fat smokers are suggesting that they deserve special, separate hospital that exclude other people.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Comprehensive schools can offer a much more tailored education as they are often large enough (150 in a year) to provide the higher academic provision. If you have that number of students:
- 30 in an academic stream (equivalent to your grammar provision);
- 60 in academic streams targeted to better English or Maths knowledge (lower grammar provision);
- 40 in a vocational stream with groups studying motor vehicles or construction;
- 20 in a stream to support learning
Couple of questions:
If you think an intake of 150 is the optimum size, what are the disadvantages in being larger than or smaller than the optimum ?
This idea of an academic stream seems like a compromise. It may be a good compromise. But I'd like to understand better what people think is being compromised.
If for illustrative purposes you started with one big school with a policy of mixed-ability teaching, and moved by stages to
- "setting" of pupils in each subject
- an academic stream for lessons but mixed-stream forms & assemblies
- an academic stream houses in a separate part of the school buildings with no interaction with other streams
- a separate grammar school
then at what stage do the supposed disadvantages to the less-academic pupils kick in ? Which step is it that you find objectionable ?
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
If for illustrative purposes you started with one big school with a policy of mixed-ability teaching, and moved by stages to
- "setting" of pupils in each subject
- an academic stream for lessons but mixed-stream forms & assemblies
- an academic stream houses in a separate part of the school buildings with no interaction with other streams
- a separate grammar school
then at what stage do the supposed disadvantages to the less-academic pupils kick in ? Which step is it that you find objectionable ?
Can't speak fpr KC, but for me, between "setting" (2) and "streaming" (3). Apart from administrative convenience, what do you feel is the disadvantage with setting, and how is that fixed by streaming?
[ 25. October 2016, 08:02: Message edited by: Jolly Jape ]
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
The sort of schools I am thinking of, the classes were mainly set for years 7 to 9, streamed for the exams in year 10 and 11. Although there were some exceptions.
I have experienced tutor groups that were streamed, grouped across the ability range and grouped across both the ability range and age range. This last to support peer-mentorinng, like school houses. Those tutor groups are part of school houses that compete for points across academic, sporting, behaviour points and other competitions.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
If you accept that having people in ability sets makes for better teaching, then the advantage of a very large school is that your sets don't have to span as wide an ability range. You would presumably see this effect most at the ability extremes: there are always going to be enough close-to-average kids to be able to have a sensible "average" set.
CK refers to a 150-pupil entry comprehensive with 30 pupils in a "grammar" stream. I would have imagined that a grammar school would have 100-150 pupil entry, drawn from the catchment area of several comprehensives, so that CK's single "grammar" stream is in the grammar school divided into 4 or 5 ability sets.
Is that not how grammar schools work?
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Apart from administrative convenience, what do you feel is the disadvantage with setting, and how is that fixed by streaming?
I think setting is hugely advantageous, relative to mixed-ability teaching. My concept of teaching includes the teacher checking the whole class's understanding of one point before moving on to something else. So that necessarily the class progresses at something not far from the speed of the slowest. Which means that if the two or three brightest pupils are taken out and put into a top set, everyone else's progress is largely unchanged. But they benefit a lot. And the effect is smaller but still significant for the second set, and the third...
And having arranged the year group by sets, the school also has scope to give bottom set to the teacher who is best with that ability group.
The trouble with doing this for every subject is that it means that the whole year group has to do the same subject at the same time. So that some of the pupils get taught history by the geography teacher.
Whereas if you set by combined ability at history & geography, then half the group can be doing history while the other half do geography. So everyone can be taught history by the history specialists. And you still get most of the benefits of setting. Especially where there's a high correlation between ability at the subjects involved.
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Russ, there's your mistake. Intelligence is not genetic in the way you seem to be thinking. There is a huge environmental component in the intelligence demonstrated by students, and that is what we are arguing.
We need to provide the best environment for as many students as possible to improve intellectual outcomes for as many students as possible.
I don't think the issue is how far academic ability or intelligence is genetic (rather than for example related to either experience in the womb or in the first seven years after birth).
I think it's more about how highly correlated are abilities at different academic subjects.
To someone who thinks there's minimal correlation, the idea of an 11+ exam to test for overall academic ability doesn't make sense.
But if there's a high correlation, then the idea of an academic stream containing those who would otherwise be in the top two sets for most subjects is a practical way of running a large school.
And I do think that the pros and cons of large and small schools are part of the argument.
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
The correlation isn't a matter of opinion. It's a matter that can be settled simply by taking individual students' GCSE results and correlating one subject against another. I think it's actually fairly obvious that there's a strong correlation.
However, it's a correlation, not a directly driven equivalence. And there's no question that there are some people who are massively talented in one area (music, art, sciences, maths) whilst not being notable in the others. I know my O Level results would not bear out correlation - compare my Us in Latin and Greek with my As and Bs in STEM subjects.
So whilst a majority of students might work OK with a streamed system, of which the grammar school system is the extreme case, there is a significant minority, often with prodigious talent in narrow areas, for whom streaming would be a disaster. I know I'd have done a lot better in French (I got a C, just) had I not been in a class aimed at a group most of whom were heading for an A. Might even have scraped Cs in the Classics if the class hadn't been freely translating Caesar's Gallic Wars whilst I was still working though Catullus with a dictionary in my hand. But I was stuck in the top stream based on my maths and science.
[ 03. November 2016, 10:04: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
The correlation isn't a matter of opinion. It's a matter that can be settled simply by taking individual students' GCSE results and correlating one subject against another. I think it's actually fairly obvious that there's a strong correlation.
Bearing in mind that by the time people sit GCSE (or, in my case O level/CSE) there is already a filtering with pupils not taking those subjects they are not strong in (beyond the core maths, science and English). If you get some choice in what you sit at GCSE then that will automatically create some correlation because you're not going to choose to do something you are crap at.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Bearing in mind that by the time people sit GCSE (or, in my case O level/CSE) there is already a filtering with pupils not taking those subjects they are not strong in (beyond the core maths, science and English). If you get some choice in what you sit at GCSE then that will automatically create some correlation because you're not going to choose to do something you are crap at.
Lucky you. I had to choose a humanity, a technology, a language and one "other" (arts, business, PE) in addition to the core subjects. Consequently I have a GCSE grade B in French.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
We also had to take a modern language (so I have a CSE grade 2 in German). But, those good at languages had the option of taking more (though I don't recall anyone doing more than just French and German). Generally, those less able at maths opted for biology rather than physics or chemistry (at least one science subject also required), opting for another humanity subject instead of the second (or third) science.
So, not an entirely free choice but enough flexibility that the statistics correlating performance across subjects at O Level/GCSE are going to be skewed to an extent by the filter of selection towards subjects you're actually good at.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
So whilst a majority of students might work OK with a streamed system, of which the grammar school system is the extreme case, there is a significant minority, often with prodigious talent in narrow areas, for whom streaming would be a disaster.
Not as much of a disaster as mixed-ability teaching.
Enough of a minority to make it worth a large school having a languages/arts stream and a maths/science stream ? As well as an academic stream ? As you say, it seems like it ought to be an empirical question.
As Alan has pointed out, having only two streams isn't going very far down the road of tailoring the education to the abilities of the child.
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
There is some research that shows that mixed ability teaching in some subjects benefits the students, specifically History, RE and technology. Those subjects have a syllabus that covers different topics over the specification and the students reach their own understanding. I have seen (in two different secondary schools in different parts of the country) a topic introduced with a discussion / film / historical artifacts to consider. The students then investigate their object / question in small groups (and the group can be structured to allow a more able student develop their understanding by helping a lower ability student or scribing for them) and feeding back their findings from their particular task. The resources for the syllabus for one school were differentiated and there were two levels of textbook within the class for the same topic. The teacher asks the questions in such a way that the lower ability students feed back first with what they've found from their sources and those students learn more from hearing the other students developing the understanding with layers of sources and more complicated interpretation. The work the students produce is differentiated by ability.
For example - considering the slave trade - the lower ability students could be given pictures of the ships or slaves to interpret and feedback what they have found, a more able small group could be interpreting diaries about slavery. The plenary on the discovery section covers all the sources used so all students take part and are made aware of the sources available. This sort of topic covers several weeks, and the final piece of work is often something synthesising the students' understanding, like a diary of being a slave.
The lower ability students benefit from being exposed to more challenging arguments and can often offer interpretations that include different aspects of understanding. The more able students benefit from clarifying their ideas to less able students and do not lose out overall from this method of teaching. In technology it doesn't do the more academically able students in technology classes to see that the students they may well look down on in other classes are far better with their hands and produce working models as often if not more often than they do.
Good mixed ability teaching is not a disaster and benefits all the students.
In contrast to your argument about streaming in the way you are thinking It is not unknown for students who are able in maths and physics to really struggle in English and imaginative subjects. That one regularly goes with Asperger's and dyslexia - specific learning difficulties. Dyscalculia is another recognised condition that can mean that students who are very able with subjects requiring a high level of literacy fail on maths and mathematically based subjects. There is almost a pride about not being able to do maths and STEM subjects in some circles. (Said through gritted teeth as a STEM student who was expected to have a good understanding of the arts, when arts students had no such pressure to learn about sciences and maths.)
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
The lower ability students benefit from being exposed to more challenging arguments and can often offer interpretations that include different aspects of understanding. The more able students benefit from clarifying their ideas to less able students and do not lose out overall from this method of teaching. In technology it doesn't do the more academically able students in technology classes to see that the students they may well look down on in other classes are far better with their hands and produce working models as often if not more often than they do.
Good mixed ability teaching is not a disaster and benefits all the students.
Given that your post started that there was "some research", is not a better conclusion
may not be a disaster and may benefit all the students. ?
A consequence of the reversion to streamed selective schooling in NSW has been to skew the ethnic background of children attending away from that of the population at large. At the end of year 12, students sit for an exam known as the Higher School Certificate (HSC) seeking as high a result as possible to satisfy university quotas. For entry to high prestige courses, such as law or medicine at one or other of the leading universities, an overall mark very close to 100 is needed (obtained by a complex system of marking, and statistical manipulation. A State high school, James Ruse Agricultural High has consistently led the State in the overall results. The consequence is that entry at year & is much sought after, and most children obtaining entry would have had very intensive coaching. The background of some 98% of the school population is recent East Asian, with parents and often children born outside Australia. This contrasts with around 23% in the population overall. The parents of these children are anxious that their boys and girls do well in their new country and engage private tuition firstly to obtain entry, and then a high mark on completion.
For many years, Sydney Boys High School filled the role of a leading school at the final exam. The School is the only non-private school in a group called the Greater Public Schools, which primarily organises inter-school sporting competitions. The make-up of the school population is not as extreme as at James Ruse, but again, most students would have been given extensive coaching. The result? Great HSC results, but some years ago the school had to drop out of the GPS rugby competition as it was obvious that not only would it be non-competitive on the playing fields, but that the boys would have been at high risk of injury.
Both are examples of real downsides to selective schooling.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
'Lower ability' is a strange term in itself.
Exams often only test memory. There's a great deal more to intelligence than regurgitating facts and figures. Quick, creative thinkers are often the ones relegated to 'lower ability' sets. Then, sadly, their quick, brilliant, creative thinking is not recognised and very much undervalued. They then either make it outside the education system (many, many examples of this) or use their abilities in undesirable persutes - the prisons are full of such people.
Change what we value in education and we'll change society as a whole.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
There is almost a pride about not being able to do maths and STEM subjects in some circles. (Said through gritted teeth as a STEM student who was expected to have a good understanding of the arts, when arts students had no such pressure to learn about sciences and maths.)
[Tangent] I had a bizarre experience doing primary Ed (yes, insanely there was a time I was going to be a primary school teacher. This was the result of a "Word from the Lord" which clearly was no such thing. But I digress). Vast majority of the students were English specialists - they outnumbered us Science and Maths groups by about five to one (which tells you something about how a low status for STEM is inherent in the education system from the start) and were asked in a drama session to act out imagining we had something on our hands we couldn't get off.
It was the scientists who knew that this was Lady Macbeth. The English specialists hadn't a clue. One of them said "Oh, we did Romeo and Juliet"...
I hadn't even taken English Lit O Level.
[/tangent]
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Exams often only test memory. There's a great deal more to intelligence than regurgitating facts and figures.
Which is probably a reflection of laziness on the part of those who set tests and exams (in particular those wanting short answers or multiple choice) - it's easier to set memory recall questions, and easier to mark (you remembered the fact or you didn't).
There are some subjects where memory recall is important. I did so badly in German at school simply because I have an awful ability to remember things, so recalling the vocabulary I needed in exams was a massive struggle. On the otherhand, I remember how to do things much better - so, give me the vocabulary and form grammatically correct sentances and I was fine (but, no one let us take English-German dictionaries into the exam room).
In maths and science I always found that if I couldn't remember how to do something I can usually work it out from first principles. I also enjoyed my O level history which was centred around interpreting and understanding events rather than just recalling dates and events - one of the exams for that gave us a stack of newspaper clippings and interviews (when I did it that was about Biafra - which wasn't in the curriculum), with essay questions for us to use that material to answer.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Good mixed ability teaching is not a disaster and benefits all the students.
Given that your post started that there was "some research", is not a better conclusion
may not be a disaster and may benefit all the students. ?
I put a caveat on that statement with with the Good. What Russ is arguing against is poor mixed ability teaching.
There are subjects where mixed ability teaching does not work so well - maths and science in particular. In those subjects students need to be able to understand and use concepts to move on to the next piece of work. A simple example to clarify, students who are struggling with the arithmetical operations of addition and subtraction will struggle to understand multiplication and division. (And yes, I've worked with year 11s in that situation)
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
'Lower ability' is a strange term in itself.
Exams often only test memory. There's a great deal more to intelligence than regurgitating facts and figures. Quick, creative thinkers are often the ones relegated to 'lower ability' sets. Then, sadly, their quick, brilliant, creative thinking is not recognised and very much undervalued. They then either make it outside the education system (many, many examples of this) or use their abilities in undesirable persutes - the prisons are full of such people.
Change what we value in education and we'll change society as a whole.
No, I'm pretty sure the quick and creative thinkers are mostly found in the higher sets. Some folk in lower sets will have talents in other areas, others are simply neither particularly clever nor particularly skilled practically. Most people have a talent they can use to make a living or to help others, but some simply don't. I can think of people I've taught who, even if they get an unskilled job, will have to be reminded what to do and checked up on at least a couple of times a day.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
There are subjects where mixed ability teaching does not work so well - maths and science in particular. In those subjects students need to be able to understand and use concepts to move on to the next piece of work.
Languages are cumulative in a similar way, as Karl's experience in Latin class illustrates.
Sometimes it seems to me that the teaching of history in schools is in need of a total rethink. I'd bet you know someone who found history in school really boring, but want on to develop an interest in it in later life. But maybe that's another topic...
It's also to do with teaching methods. Where there's in effect a whole-class conversation going on, seems to me that people learn more when the questions and contributions from other students are pitched at around the level of their own understanding. I find I don't gain much from listening to people belabour the obvious. Or listening to people who are confused at a much higher level than I am. But it's really useful to have a fellow student ask the question that I'm struggling to formulate and might have got to in a few minutes time, or conversely to reinforce something I"he just grasped by phrasing it in another way.
But what you're talking about is more interactive models of what goes on in the classroom. Interactive is good, perhaps particularly for subjects like history. Drama, quizzes, games, debates - all good stuff, much better than an endless round of being talked at and regurgitating facts in written homework.
A big challenge for 21st century education is effective use of computer software for interactive learning.
Mixed-ability interactive sessions might work relatively well. Relative to mixed-ability whole-class teaching. But I'd need a bit of convincing that they work better than the same sort of interactive methods applied to groups with a narrower ability range.
Can you really imagine a class of bright creative top-stream students turning to one another and saying "You know we'd learn so much more if we had some really thick people here to explain things to" ?
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
There is research around that shows students benefit from supporting their peers - it's the basis of many peer mentoring schemes. And it is not that difficult to promote peer mentoring schemes among brighter more able students.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Can you really imagine a class of bright creative top-stream students turning to one another and saying "You know we'd learn so much more if we had some really thick people here to explain things to" ?
It may be difficult to imagine it happening, that doesn't mean it wouldn't be good for those students to do that. An anecdote (from slightly older than the discussion here), but in my final year at university I had a friend who was doing a joint physics and electronics degree and was struggling with quantum mechanics, whereas I'd done additional courses in nuclear, solid state and low temperature physics that used a lot of quantum mechanics and hence had applied the theory in a way he didn't. I spent a few hours about a week before the exam helping him through the course notes and past exam questions, which really helped me to grasp the subject better and no doubt helped when I sat the exam, and of course helped my friend. In whatever subject, the best ways to learn and understand something is to use it and teach it.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
An anecdote (from slightly older than the discussion here), but in my final year at university I had a friend who was doing a joint physics and electronics degree and was struggling with quantum mechanics, whereas I'd done additional courses in nuclear, solid state and low temperature physics that used a lot of quantum mechanics and hence had applied the theory in a way he didn't. I spent a few hours about a week before the exam helping him through the course notes and past exam questions, which really helped me to grasp the subject better and no doubt helped when I sat the exam, and of course helped my friend.
That's an example of an exceptionally intelligent person helping a merely very intelligent person to understand a ridiculously complicated and advanced subject.
I doubt you'd have found it quite as helpful to be spending that pre-exam time trying to help someone to understand basic thermodynamics. Especially if, no matter how you try, they prove to be invincibly incapable of understanding it.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
Yes, but we have already agreed that maths and science are not good subjects to teach as mixed ability, so your example doesn't stand
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
There is research around that shows students benefit from supporting their peers - it's the basis of many peer mentoring schemes. And it is not that difficult to promote peer mentoring schemes among brighter more able students.
Thanks, CK
I don't doubt that given any particular ability-spread in a class, there are benefits to active-learning groupwork methods that allow those who grasp ideas more quickly to explain to others, thus reinforcing their own learning, so that everyone benefits relative to a model in which only the teacher does the talking.
I don't see any necessary conflict between that and the idea that it's better to have classes with narrower ability-spreads so that the pace at which the class covers the material is appropriate to the students' needs.
Groupwork methods can work just as well within sets - there's nothing in the method that requires a wide ability range.
But it may be that the case for groupwork methods is stronger where classes are mixed-ability because the alternative is worse...
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mark_in_manchester
not waving, but...
# 15978
|
Posted
quote:
Yes, but we have already agreed that maths and science are not good subjects to teach as mixed ability
I ran a one-year postgrad taught MSc in a niche are of engineering for quite a few years at a rather lowly university - because it was niche and had solid content there were no real competitor courses (although a few versions with no maths were out there at even lowlier outposts of learning, to trap the unwary).
I often found myself in front of 20 students, where 2 might be Oxbridge, 4 might be from serious European / Indian institutions, and the rest varied right down to people I'd required to complete OU eng math modules before registering, as a form of access course from a formerly 'arts' background.
With loads of effort put into managing course applicants / ethical student recruitment, I found it was possible to run such a 'comprehensive' system without ripping people off at either end of the ability scale, and without diluting course content.
It helped to be blunt with people from the start, and to help folks ditch appropriate ranks of bells and whistles from their material so as to adopt a diet which they stood a chance of digesting. At postgrad level, they were mostly OK with being realistic about the amount of material they (as opposed to the Oxbridge guy) might be able to handle - but it was all in there, and the Oxbridge guys never ran out of things to do. I was also lucky that I never met a nasty one - they pointed out my shitty math technique at the end of the session, not in the middle of it.
(That such good behaviour was...tangential...to the goal$ of the in$titution, eventually became rather wearing. I thought I'd retired (rather early), but these days I'm a PT lab technician in another area of engineering).
--------------------
"We are punished by our sins, not for them" - Elbert Hubbard
(so good, I wanted to see it after my posts and not only after those of shipmate JBohn from whom I stole it)
Posts: 1596 | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
mark_in_manchester
not waving, but...
# 15978
|
Posted
quote:
quote:
I went to a private school on a scholarship. I was bullied.
You are me and I claim my five pounds.
No he's not, he's me ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I was bullied for being bright, and for being poor; oh, and I'd nearly forgotten, for being 'out' as a Christian. Other bullying epithets in my public school at that time were gay, though not black, as I remember, oddly enough.
--------------------
"We are punished by our sins, not for them" - Elbert Hubbard
(so good, I wanted to see it after my posts and not only after those of shipmate JBohn from whom I stole it)
Posts: 1596 | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
You know, reading through this, especially Curiosity and Russ, has led to one of those light up moments. At last I get what people were on about who thought we should have our astronomy lecture courses turned into discuss with each other courses. As they made a pig's ear out of explaining the concept to the lecturer, I suspect they had no idea themselves about the process they were advocating.
I'm not converted to wanting to do it when I go to a lecture, but I do understand what the idea was about. I will pass this on to the lecturer concerned.
Why isn't there a lightbulb emoji?
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
