Little Rant. Thought some intelligent people might have some good perspectives as well. I have three children and I'm starting to hear the phrase "everybody is a winner" or a "prize of participating" and things like that. It annoys me because it belittles the person who actually did well. It also makes me think about how people are content with mediocrity. If everybody is a winner, why should you bother? My daughter is an excellent student, very intelligent and far above her current year. She seems to have an excellent mix of academic and athletic prowess. I do mention it because it's relevant. However, they won't provide her with any extra education to challenge her because they feel "that older children will be undermined and her peers will feel intimidated". How is that fair? She does well and they're worrying about how it will affect the other children. I give her some extra teaching myself to challenge her and it does her well, she feels challenged and isn't getting bored with what I teach her. Not only that, but her teacher is questioning about why she's doing so well. I teach her how to write nicely with a pen and they get defensive, saying that "she's too young to use a cartridge pen and other children haven't progressed that far". Apparently it's not okay for me to give her extra education myself, either. It isn't just education, it's life really. Promotions are less heard of because other employees feel intimidated or angry that someone else is hired, or the fact that some people stay in the same job for years, content with their mediocre pay rate. People slate others as well, for being aggressive, ruthless or hungry to get a better job; like it's wrong to have aspirations. What do you think? Am I overthinking or overreacting too much?
I feel like most schools don't do enough for the more advanced children, and they are somewhat held back because they have to wait with the other kids. The most challenge I ever experienced in grade school was being put in a split class (1/2 the class would be grade 7 for example, and the other half would be grade 8). That was as far as any challenges went. My brother who isn't teaching yet but did teachers college was taught that for group work they should pair up the more advanced / stronger kids with the weaker ones to "balance" things out. It really is unfair, since from experience, the weaker students USUALLY don't have the same work ethic, and don't complete their work. Unless you feel like going private for your kids education, I don't see them being overly challenged, which is really unfortunate. Edit: My sister, who's in high school said teachers have a real tough time with students doing things "differently". There are multiple ways to solve a math problem BUT if you don't do it the way the teacher taught you, you lose marks. Sure its correct, but it's wrong because you didn't follow the teachers rules. Another big issue is the quality of teachers. Here in Canada, many teachers who are now ineffective should be retired, but choose to continue working. Plus, teaching is a very comfortable job, so many people just go into teaching because it's an easy way out. People need to be passionate to educate children, but many of the people who are now supposed to be educators just read the pre-determined material and make no effort to make education more engaging and fun for children.
I know what you mean; but my problem is that they won't teach anything more complex, not that they can't. They want all of the children to stay on the same level, seemingly to make it easier for the teacher so they don't have to give special attention to any one student.
Ask your daughter if she is okay with moving to new school, if so, try find school that will understand that your daughter is more advanced than her peers. Would be too weird if every school has that kind of attitude. I hate the attitude that someone shouldn't be doing something on certain age, like wtf is the purpose of that? "Slow down, you're learning too fast, get ADHD or something before you become the next Mozart".
That's precisely the way it feels, she's apparently going too fast that it 'intimidates' her peers. She's 5, can a 5 year old BE intimidating academically?
Not sure if it's a UK national strategy, but ask your school if they have and Able, Gifted & Talented (AG&T) programme. She may be too young yet, but my kids' primary school had a programme where they took lids who were able in certain areas to special classes or gatherings town [Bournemouth] wide to do things with other similarly able children. I agree fully with your rant, 'Comprehensive' education should cater and nurture all abilities, not bring them all down to the lowest common denominator. IMHO, being able/gifted is similar to special needs, because if it is not nurtured the child will be demotivated and become disruptive. My son was a bit that way in some classes, he had to be kept busy as he'd get through the work and then want to chat as he was finished before many of the others (never mind preferring to work standing up...). Ask and see, there may well be outlets later on if not now.
I would think that she is more intimidating if she stays with her current peers if they are not as advanced as she is.
This sort of thing puts me on the edge of a nigh on explosive rant (deep breaths). I'm with you 100% and this sort of behaviour is breeding an entire generation of entitled, mediocre tw**s How on earth does that prepare children for the world? "I get a pat on the back for taking part, so why try harder?". Meanwhile, as you say, the ones that do try harder get zero recognition for their accomplishments and hard work. That sort of attitude is really going to lead to well balanced adults that contribute to society in a meaningful manner, right? I was really going to try to join the conversation in a constructive and eloquent manner, but I'm having trouble keeping the rage at bay... so might need to bow out
I'm in two camps. By all means, encourage competition and give the 'winner' the praise they deserve for coming first in whatever they are doing. Sports days should have podium finishers, and there's no way of arguing that whoever came first was at the front of the pack. Equally, we have to encourage those who didn't win, because if we don't they may simply drop out of anything in the future, or if forced to do it, put in minimum effort. That can apply to sport and education equally - don't acknowledge the effort of those lower down the field and they'll see no benefit for them. However, they shouldn't get the same level of praise as the ones who really are busting their nuts.
I think largely rewarding and distinguishing a child relative to their personal abilities and expected level of achievement rather than within a hierarchy that puts the most naturally gifted children at the top is fine, fair and healthy. It not so much that just taking part that counts, more whether they leave it all on the field. However, not challenging a student and holding them back because of some false idea that this equates to inequality is wrong. The two aren't mutually exclusive. Indeed challenging and rewarding a student relative to their natural abilities seems like it is at the core of the problem here. It should apply across the spectrum of abilities. There are limits to what can be done in a comprehensive environment due to limited resources, but the very least that should happen is recognition and encouragement. If that isn't happening then there is a problem.
i could easily rant for a ( very ) long time about the subject on schools i have little doubt that if the school had acted on the instincts of the minority of teachers, got my diagnosed autistic, and pushed the subjects i was good at ( maths, Science, IT, etc ) then my life would have been VERY different, instead they branded me a troubled child and had me repeating stuff over and over again. Even to the point of having school trips that i wasnt allowed to go on due to my ''behaviour'' and one teacher gave me a detention in class for correcting a mistake SHE made the pattern continued throughout high school where i failed IT ( despite building computers as a hobby ) due to 'continued disagreements' between me and the staff ( correcting him and trying to explain keyboard short-cuts isnt a ''cheat'' my response was more or less to give up trying and fail the class the other major beef i had with my schools was very simple, children that act out get rewarded when they behaive, but those that behave everyday do not
I suspect (judging by my wifes experience as a secondary teacher) that its less of a matter of want, and more of a matter of driven to. she is constantly frustrated by the lack of ability to press better students. At least in the UK, the key measures are 'levels of progress' and 5 a/c gcses. The upshot being that kids who are nailed on to make 2 levels of progress and aren't at the C/D borderline get less support, because school funding is contingent on acheiving those targets. I suspect something similar is in operation right down the chain.
This kind of attitude from schools is counter-productive in the extreme. I found primary school too easy and was not challenged at all. Result, I just cruised through school, until 11 years old, with no real effort, then when I went to secondary school, the damage was already done. I made no effort, because I was used to not needing to, left at 16 and got nowhere. Today's gifted 5 year old, could go on to be a gifted scientist, or engineer or doctor but, only if they are challenged so they see education as worthwhile, not something they can cruise through on auto-pilot.
Neither! TBH, your school sounds awful if your portrayal is accurate. Keep at it, and encourage those kids to fulfil their full potential! On the flip side, academic achievement and athletic prowess are not good solo markers for 'This kid is better than that kid' styles of reward. For example my daughter has disabilities and cannot join in the same way as other kids, this does not make her a 'loser' and I'm very glad her school does not sort children into winners and losers. My twins school rewards achievement in the context of what each kid has achieved and can achieve. A kid on the SEN register may become 'star of the week' and be recognised in assembly for eating a school meal for the first time without screaming, another may be recognised for an academic competition win against other kids in higher years. Teams win competitions and success is recognised. EG Some kids earn their 'pen licence' early and others take a long time. Classes are streamed into groups on ability. Sports days and competitions are real competitions, some people come in first and others don't. There's huge opportunity to be acknowledged for achievement, ability or fortitude. Are the brightest kids pushed as hard as they could be? Probably not, but then that's where us as parents come in. The school can tell me my daughter has a reading ages four years higher than it needs to be, but it's not practical for them to be teaching her a completely different curriculum because of it. They do what they can (or something close to it grrrrr) and we pick up around the edges. My girl isn't EVER going to win a sports day race as we're not even allowed to let her compete for her own safety, but she's great academically and unparalleled when it comes to enthusiasm and love for school. She gets recognised when she excels and doesn't get ridiculed when she can't physically keep up. Recognition of 'winners' is all find and dandy as long as everyone has the opportunity to be a winner within the context of their own potential. What about (and this is a real world example) of two lads. One who comes from an extremely sporty family and excels at every sporting achievement as him and his family are off racing every single weekend. The other lad comes from a single mum family with his mum and his other siblings being not physically active (to say the least). Lad 1, brings in his trophies and awards to show and tell all the time, Lad 2 works his socks off with a smile on his face but is never top three. Both are amazing kids, both try and work really hard. Both are easily living up to their potential, one of which is doing so without much/any support at home. These are seven year old lads. They are both lovely kids and both deserve the most awesome praise for when they push themselves. My daughter has such nice friends Oh, and my lad 'busts his nuts' when competing but is not much of a runner and has always been back of the pack. He finds this real hard as he tries so hard. He needs the praise just as much as the top finishers. It's not my lads fault that his sisters disability and other familial illnesses mean he doesn't spend 20hrs a week in training like some of his friends! Praise everyone but don't hide the details on who won. Bring them to the front, give them a round of applause and a medal. They won, they deserve the medal. Everyone who pushed themselves deserves praise.
This idea of education as a competition is based upon the USA philosophy of educating and it has been proven time and time again to be quite ineffective on the whole (I will try and dig up a few of the studies). Personally I find the analogy of sport and education quite misleading, yes in both hard work will produce results, but unlike sport there is no objective win state and to artificially create one through exams scores undermines the whole idea of what education should be about.
This is the jist of it. I accept that children should be acknowledged as doing well, but our modern societies seem to acknowledge winning less. The winner should still be given their due, but yes, everyone who participated should be congratulated and accepted. Also, academic and athletics aside; my daughter does generally do better than the other children in her class (without sounding like an Asshole). Not that I don't acknowledge the other children are trying, my daughter isn't getting any attention for doing better. As I basically said, I as a parent am being slated for trying to challenge her to do better, so that her peers don't feel intimidated or undermined by her progress. That in itself is completely wrong. In fact, earlier today we had parents evening. They told us that they wanted my daughter to take her SATS assessment in a few weeks instead of near the end of the year because she has exhausted the curriculum for her year already. That means she has to take that test to be able to gain any extra education. Seems kinda silly.
Every child is good at something, so consolatory pandering to the loser is not necessary. A child may lose or suck at something, but win or excel at another. For a healthy psychological development it needs to experience and learn to cope graciously with both --treat those two imposters just the same, as the poem goes. No child sucks at everything. If it does, that's a damning failure of adults failing to discover and nurture its potential. Current education does not nurture exceptionally bright children. First, most teachers are of above average intelligence, but few are exceptionally bright. Second, teachers are penalised for underperforming children, not rewarded for exceptionally performing ones, so that's where the effort and resources go. Third, those resources are limited; many school are struggling just to keep the SATs up. They have nothing left for the really bright kids.
Has this always been the case in the UK education system? My only experience of schools in the UK is 6th form, and whilst there was plenty of individual attention and nurturing, the school was unashamedly private and class sizes were in the single digits. I went to primary school in the US, and as early as the 1st grade there were children identified as "gifted", and taken out of the normal class for special classes at certain points during the day. I never noted any attention, positive or negative, from the "non gifted" children towards the gifted ones. I never noted any non-gifted child feeling low self worth because they were not part of the gifted ones. (mind, I was 6-9, so perhaps I wouldn't have) I went to "middle school" (grades 4-6) in the US as well, and at this school classes were organised according to abilities. For want of better descriptive terms, there were classes with all smart kids, classes with all dumb kids and classes with kids right down the middle. These weren't set in stone, and I recall that kids were moved between classes throughout the year. I went to secondary school in Ireland - here there was also the concept of split classes for certain subjects (this being the first school I went to where you went to the class, instead of the teacher coming to you). Two categories this time, an "advanced" and a normal class. This was normal. There was a few occasions when an external "auditor", I suppose you would call it, came in and assessed all of the students and noted the particularly intellectual ones and offered invitations to all manner of extra-curricular things. Furthermore, the ones that got nominated were called out on the school's notice board (and in the local paper FFS) in recognition of the achievement. Again, this was normal. And it wasn't just "smarts". The ones who were the sports heros were recognised, the ones who scored the best exam results were recognised (note, never the same group as the particularly "intellectual" ones), the ones who had perfect attendance were recognised, and so on. If you were good at something, it was called out, if you weren't, well that's just fine too.
I floundered at school despite being very bright, struggling to motivate myself or commit to work, because there was a strange imbalance in how involved staff got depending on how you performed: if you didn't do the work properly, they sat down and talked to you about it, engaged with you and provided you with targets and structure; if you did all the work on time, they effectively ignored you, giving you a grade for the work and nothing else. No reward, no greater tailored challenges, no faster advancement onto more interesting work - you didn't even learn faster by working faster. So why bother? Consequently, and because I really liked the teachers and liked interacting with them and talking about my work, I was chronically lazy (to all appearances) and hovered on the edge of poor performance to get attention. I didn't realise I was doing it at the time (and nor did the school-appointed counsellor, incompetent ****wit that he was). When I describe this, people get very lofty and say that I have a bad work ethic and that I should've done the work for the sake of it. I can't agree with them. I'm quietly proud of the fact that, given no clear reason to do any more than the bare minimum, I did the bare minimum. To me, the kids silently and meekly churning out straight-As for no reward, encouragement or advancement looked like fools. TL;DR: schools have negative feedback but not positive feedback, and some kids get bored easily and like being interacted with and will gravitate towards doing what gets them the most feedback and attention.
I'd go with a yes. Why? The kid in question is five, still plenty of time left to introduce her to the harsh realities of life. If it continued like that in later school years I'd agree it would be a problem (not really up to date on the current school system, so can't make a prediction if it will continue that way), but I' say school simply had to be toned down massively in the first years to account for the ever decreasing age it starts at, allowing kids to be kids and all that.
