For Those Whose Names Were Never Called When Choosing Sides For Basketball

[One-percent]

There can always be opportunities later, but the greatest opportunity is at the beginning. I've experienced bright children who are only allowed in my lessons if accompanied by a parent because the child is so disruptive, invariably they are accompanied by a parent who spends the whole time texting.

Totally agree. But otoh, there are many bright kids written off for various reasons (see research on labelling) who manage against the odds to rise above this once they can think for themselves. What really worries me is that these second chancers are having pathways closed down as access to education after 25 is no longer funded

[Sledgehead]

Food, sleep,etc, blah, blah

I'll tell you what makes great anythings, be it sportsmen, artists or academics : a feeling that it matters.

Allowing teachers to select their charges gives them a sense that it matters. Allowing students to feel selected gives them a sense that it matters. Nothing else is as important as that.

[One-percent]

Food, sleep,etc, blah, blah

I'll tell you what makes great anythings, be it sportsmen, artists or academics : a feeling that it matters.

Allowing teachers to select their charges gives them a sense that it matters. Allowing students to feel selected gives them a sense that it matters. Nothing else is as important as that.

And confidence. The education system is very good at telling individuals that they are just a bit $hit but not very good at letting them know when they do well (other than the flannel that everyone is a special snowflake which most can see through)

[LiveinHope]

Totally agree. But otoh, there are many bright kids written off for various reasons (see research on labelling) who manage against the odds to rise above this once they can think for themselves. What really worries me is that these second chancers are having pathways closed down as access to education after 25 is no longer funded

Yes, I never stop learning. For many children however, what is needed most is for their parents to give time and take an interest, colouring, spelling, adding, looking, noticing, questioning. It's a topic for another thread, but the bashing of education and teachers by the general public has not helped education to be viewed as valuable or aspirational.

[LiveinHope]

Food, sleep,etc, blah, blah

I'll tell you what makes great anythings, be it sportsmen, artists or academics : a feeling that it matters.

Allowing teachers to select their charges gives them a sense that it matters. Allowing students to feel selected gives them a sense that it matters. Nothing else is as important as that.

Even though I hate religion, I'd say we are singing from the same hymn sheet.

[Mikhail Liebenstein]

Ok, I'll bite.

There is a relationship between educational attainment, wealth and social class. It does not take an expert to identify this and a couple of examples are firstly, lower achieving schools tend to be found in poor areas whereas, schools in middle class areas tend to do relatively better. Second example is that those kids who go to fee paying schools tend to do better academically than kids in the local comp.

The real question is why this is. Avoiding IQ, is it that being poor makes people thick? Or is it something else?

I think parental example, effort and aspiration comes into this very significantly. And also how much value you place on education.

My wife and i like to make an effort. We read to kids almost every night, and we also make our 5 year old read most nights. Our 4 year old will also start soon. We have always had loads of books in the house. We do interesting trips at the weekend and I like to do extra curricula things like Scratch coding. They were all toilet trained by 3.

On the flip side, your hear of kids turning up to primary school still needing nappies and unable to interact having done little other than play on an iPad for the last 3 years.

Now, it is fair to say my kids have lots of advantages from relative wealth including going to a private school. But I am not sure that those monetary advantages are everything. I also know people who have had far greater monetary advantaged who have gone the other way, equally my own parents were definitely not well off, but I was always pushed and they had high aspirations and so I tried hard at school and then went on to a top University and then straight into a very good job.

[Mikhail Liebenstein]

Also you do get parents like this:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3781814/Ohio-police-share-horrifying-photos-adults-passed-overdosing-car-toddler-backseat.html

[One-percent]

I think parental example, effort and aspiration comes into this very significantly. And also how much value you place on education.

My wife and i like to make an effort. We read to kids almost every night, and we also make our 5 year old read most nights. Our 4 year old will also start soon. We have always had loads of books in the house. We do interesting trips at the weekend and I like to do extra curricula things like Scratch coding. They were all toilet trained by 3.

On the flip side, your hear of kids turning up to primary school still needing nappies and unable to interact having done little other than play on an iPad for the last 3 years.

Now, it is fair to say my kids have lots of advantages from relative wealth including going to a private school. But I am not sure that those monetary advantages are everything. I also know people who have had far greater monetary advantaged who have gone the other way, equally my own parents were definitely not well off, but I was always pushed and they had high aspirations and so I tried hard at school and then went on to a top University and then straight into a very good job.

Agree totally. There is also a balance to be had. I hated the pushy, strident parents in the school playground. I did all that stuff of encouraging, reading with, helping and supporting my kids. I was often at odds with their teachers. At primary for not making them do their homework. My gentle argument with the teacher went along the lines of 'do they have time for play at school?' The response was that they were far too busy for stuff like that. Wel ok, for me play was important and that's what we do at home. In secondary, the kids did cats tests which has my youngest down as only 25 percent chance of gaining five GCSEs. Teachers did not understand the argument that assessment only tells you where someone is at, it is not a predictor. Parents evenings were a pain.

Long story shot, because I encouraged rather than pushed, both kids are doing really well and actually enjoy learning. We have fecked education up so much that for many it is a trial and not a journey of discovery and enlightenment.

[Sledgehead]

For some reason, differentiation by IQ is a contentious subject, by sporting prowess is not.

IQ is nothing more than being good at IQ tests.

Sporting prowess is an innate ability.

Some people are born with it and waste it - Rooney, Gazza.

Some people are born with little but work very hard - Keegan.

Some people are born with AND work hard - Ronaldo, Messi.

Some people may fall into one of those categories and get their leg broke at 15.

I can see what you are trying to do here. You are attempting to justify selection in sport, on the grounds that excluding 'mere mortals' is not artificially destroying their chances. Likewise, you are attempting to discredit the practice of selection in academia by suggesting that anyone can be taught to be academic, and thus exluding anyone is tantamount to an artificial destruction of their potential opportunities.

And yet no sooner have you made your blanket statement about innate sporting prowess, you then seek to qualify it in every way, so as to make its validation by example all but impossible. TThis tells me something fundamental: you have no faith in your assertion.

And neither do I.

Look at our greatest Olympians. Redgrave has suffered from the highly debilitating ulcerative colitis. Laura Trott was born premature. Do these sound like perfect specimens to you? Trott however cites her meeting with Wiggins and his gold medal as key to her development as a cyclist. Yes she had an ability, but what mattered was the sense that it mattered. And that is true of any discipline.

Your attempt to separate the physical from the mental is artificial and wrong. Children have different abilities in different disciplines. Whether they flourish depends on finding people who are passionate about those disciplines and want to see those abilities develop into excellence.

[Sledgehead]

I think sleep is the biggy for brains.

and i think joints wear less when they are rested, but a tennis player with well rested joints doesn't win too many grand slams.

[Sledgehead]

Even though I hate religion, I'd say we are singing from the same hymn sheet.

I hate religion too. And I went to a Catholic selective school (as a CofE student). Got a feeling that bracketted bit was the only thing that saved my young @rse from the frocked shirt lifters who taught us. Hope Theresa is across that small but significant 'complication' with some faith schools.

[Sledgehead]

And confidence. The education system is very good at telling individuals that they are just a bit $hit but not very good at letting them know when they do well (other than the flannel that everyone is a special snowflake which most can see through)

and that can only come from selection

[Guest TheBlueCat]

Well, I went to an absolutely sh1te comprehensive school that failed just about every kid that went there. Starting an academically selective school nearby would have been one possible solution to that but probably not the cheapest or indeed best.

[Hail the Tripod]

I find it amazing that most schools are even against streaming/setting within year groups. Surely with 30+ kids in a class you can do more with a group of kids with fairly similar ability. They recently decided (were told) to stop streaming the three maths classes at my sons' school. Now a teacher has to deliver a single lesson to a class where some kids can multiply fractions and some kids cannot even form all 10 number characters legibly. Impossible task.

[porca misèria]

Yes, I never stop learning. For many children however, what is needed most is for their parents to give time and take an interest, colouring, spelling, adding, looking, noticing, questioning. It's a topic for another thread, but the bashing of education and teachers by the general public has not helped education to be viewed as valuable or aspirational.

Exactly. Parents taking an interest in my learning was the big advantage I had. At least in the crucial early years. Is anyone proposing measures to give that to Matilda? At what point in your childhood do you realise that your parents being deliberately silly (or even your granny being dotty) are doing something a little more than just asking to be corrected?

On the other hand, those whose parents have a telly and give them football and pop culture aren't going to be bullied for having no clue about the football league, or for thinking the beatles are insects with hard shells, or having no clue what a dalek was.

[libspero]

My two cents..

The biggest problem with the debate is the stigma still attached by those who remember it (regarding comps and grammars).

I think this can create an unwillingness to consider anything other than a one size fits all approach.

In my humble opinion it makes absolute sense to stream kids by ability.. whether this is done in different institutions or the same one is relatively unimportant (IMO) provided there is always the ability to migrate fluidly from one to the other at any point a kid is ahead of their class or struggling to keep up. I don't see that a single arbitrary test should define a child's education for a 5 year period.

I'm not keen on "super schools", Small is better in my view.. and in this way separate schools do make some sense. On the other hand kids are entitled to their social lives and separate schools would make it harder to switch without losing friends etc in the process.

[StainlessSteelCat]

Hard to say whether this will be an improvement.

A one size fits all or selection by ability won't suit all - or remedy poor health, poor nutrition, poor parenting, lack of expectation in local area/by parents/peers, reaching development stages at a different point to the average etc. Equally, what are we educating them for anyway? Compliant drones with an education that is at least a decade behind the times they will be living in, or free thinkers able to shift and adjust with the times (which could include a path to a post work world in their lifetime).

Ideally, and I suspect this will come in my lifetime, we'll have an education system which is individually tailored to help them get the best out of themselves and their lives. It'll likely be run by robots with teachers acting as facilitators/providing pastoral care.

[spyguy]

I can see what you are trying to do here. You are attempting to justify selection in sport, on the grounds that excluding 'mere mortals' is not artificially destroying their chances. Likewise, you are attempting to discredit the practice of selection in academia by suggesting that anyone can be taught to be academic, and thus exluding anyone is tantamount to an artificial destruction of their potential opportunities.

And yet no sooner have you made your blanket statement about innate sporting prowess, you then seek to qualify it in every way, so as to make its validation by example all but impossible. TThis tells me something fundamental: you have no faith in your assertion.

And neither do I.

Look at our greatest Olympians. Redgrave has suffered from the highly debilitating ulcerative colitis. Laura Trott was born premature. Do these sound like perfect specimens to you? Trott however cites her meeting with Wiggins and his gold medal as key to her development as a cyclist. Yes she had an ability, but what mattered was the sense that it mattered. And that is true of any discipline.

Your attempt to separate the physical from the mental is artificial and wrong. Children have different abilities in different disciplines. Whether they flourish depends on finding people who are passionate about those disciplines and want to see those abilities develop into excellence.

Professional sportsmen are physical freaks.

Best example is cycling . Freakish hearts.

Football- exceptional eye ball.

Sprinters - all tall and leggy.

[SarahBell]

Middle class *******!

I remember going out with a girl from Caedmon.

I went round for tea - fish + potatoes.

Thats fine - chips are potatoes.

They did not have a chip pan!

I asked for scraps too.

She said they only had grilled fish in her house.

I was not sure what that was.

There were no batter.

Your limerick sucks.

[MrPin]

Your limerick sucks.

Maybe it's bad Haiku?

[spyguy]

Looking at it, I seeI was consiously pushing the bounds of Beat poetry.

Maybe I can go to a happening and read it out, wearing a beret.

'I call this - No fcking chips!'

[dgul]

Maybe it's bad Haiku?

She said they only had grilled fish in her house.

I was not sure what that was.

There were no batter.

Not too dreadful.

[notMyName]

I'm following this debate with some interest, as I have 6 and 8 yr old girls in a council estate primary at the moment. They are quite bright, and stand out in the class as most of the parents don't really value education as far as I can tell. The school is quite good as far as I can tell, but they seem to spend way more time bringing the many underachieving/disruptive kids up to the lowest level than encouraging the brighter kids to do better. We try our best to help and keep the girls motivated and interested in school, but it would be nice to get the feeling that the school appreciates the brighter students as much as it works hard to bring the lower achievers up to standard.

My main issue at the moment is that our catchment secondary school is honestly bad. It was failing a few years ago, and as it is the catchment school for 6 council estates it has a large amount of disruptive kids. Now in my view it only take 1 disruptive kid to take attention away from the rest of the class, so things aren't going to be great in that school. The idea that my girls might be able to escape to a grammar is quite appealing.

My mother went to a grammar, but she hated it as she was working class, and the 'posh' kids used to pick on her, but I like to think things will be slightly different now, than in the 60's.

I would like to see all schools be outstanding, but I really can't see that happening in my lifetime. If only I had about 300k so I could move into the catchment area for the nice schools...

[Sledgehead]

Professional sportsmen are physical freaks.

Best example is cycling . Freakish hearts.

Football- exceptional eye ball.

Sprinters - all tall and leggy.

Learn to do this mentally (no paper, no computer):

Calculate the day of the week like in Rainman

Then learn to play chess so you can beat the top computer programs.

Then tell me what you know about freaks.

Oh, and there is no scientific support available yet for your own assertion:

Genetic influence on athletic performance

Lisa M. Guth and Stephen M. Roth

... Summary

A favorable genetic profile, when combined with an optimal training environment, is important for elite athletic performance; however, few genes are consistently associated with elite athletic performance, and none are linked strongly enough to warrant their use in predicting athletic success.

But then somebody with your views is hardly likely to worry about a 'little' thing like that, right?

[porca misèria]

My mother went to a grammar, but she hated it as she was working class, and the 'posh' kids used to pick on her, but I like to think things will be slightly different now, than in the 60's.

For what it's worth, I went one year to a selective school after passing the 11+, and had a terrible time for similar (not identical) reasons. After that, the family moved house again, and we were in a comprehensive area. The top stream in the comprehensive was academically way too easy, but socially much nicer.