UKC

Has anyone heard of this? There was an info (brainwashing) session at our son's school tonight that this is going to be their new philosophy and how we, the parents, can support it. I am deeply suspicious. A short internet research reveals that this is the idea of one person at Stanford university US wanting to sell loads of books. It sounds very commonsensical, yet prescriptive and standardised, set up to cash in on the books.

Anyone know of this or has any ideas?

I am deeply sceptical...

In reply to Heike:

No experience at all.

'Bump for your thread'

In reply to Timmd:

Thank you, never heard of it before myself...the teachers were letting us believe that everyone in Scotland is doing this now...we'll see if I get any teachers' replies. It just sounded like some US self-help book to me, I am afraid, but I am happy to be educated if anyone knows anything about this idea...

In reply to Heike:
I just had a quick google. Like all the best lucrative book selling ideas it looks like a mix of common sense and woo.

The sensible part of the web page I found can be distilled down to one line: You need to put some effort in even if you are smart.

Truly a revolutionary insight!

In reply to davidbeynon:

As you say ...truly revolutionary.... I wonder how much they paid for it...

In reply to Heike:
It seems to be the lastest fashion, tell the kids they get clever by working hard. It has some basis maybe but as usual has been taken too far and way out of context. It's part of the government drive to make every kid above average, and blame the teachers when every child doesn't get top grades. It's a bit unfair to make them think they aren't working hard enough if they don't get A in everything. Some kids are brighter than others, but apparently we are not supposed to think like that any more. Some headteachers seem to think buying in to these kind of schemes will magically improve exam results. It probably will to some extent as would a placebo. I would probably treat it like all the other education fashions, ignore it and it will go away eventually.

We are not doing it as such, but some of our young teachers have been spouting something about it. Teacher in England.

In reply to Heike:
My understanding was that praising children for effort and results rather than letting them rest on their laurels was fairly uncontrovertial these days so hopefully not much. On the other hand this seems to come with a memorable brand name attached so I expect it was quite a lot.

If I was less of a dinosaur I would be keeping an eye on these fads, by which I mean breakthroughs and becoming an educational consultant or something.

In reply to marsbar:

Hmm, interesting. So what are we telling the ones who don't get straight As in everything - that they are useless or a failure, because they haven't tried hard enough. Now that's going to produce a number of vey disenchanted youths. Not everyone can get As in everything...

In reply to davidbeynon:

I am all for praising effort, but the flip side is that children are being put under enormous pressure to achieve results that they may not be capable of because "the data says they should". Meanwhile mental health problems and eating disorders are rising, children are missing out on life because they have too much homework, and every child thinks they can be a doctor or a vet and thinks they have failed if they don't get the grades. Realistic career goals go out of the window and children work hard to fail and blame themselves. I'm glad I was at school then and not now.

In reply to davidbeynon:

>


I wish I could do without these fads ...sigh...

In reply to Heike:
You are off message and require reprogramming. All children should get top grades in everything. Everyone is above average


Experience suggests that trying to explain the reality to your child's headteacher will not be a success! I expect your child may well understand better.

In reply to marsbar:

I'm not religious but god bless you teachers for putting up with all the different pressures.

In reply to Heike:
I did a bit of Googling on this since I've been wary of educational fads ever since my son was supposedly taught to read using ITA, a disastrous system involving dreaming up extra letters in the alphabet which enjoyed a brief vogue in the mid-70s. His spelling is still atrocious.

Unless the stuff I've looked is missing something 'growth mindsets' says that if you work at something you will get better. It's hard to argue with that as a concept since it seems to be just common sense. However, I'd be very dubious about handing over my kid to anyone dim enough to need to be told something so blindingly obvious.

In reply to Timmd:

The kids make it worth it. You can't buy that look on their face when they suddenly get it.

In reply to marsbar:

You are taking the words out of my mouth...! Realistic is the word and also not everyone wants to be a vet etc and you can make loads more money if you are good with a trade, too!

In reply to Wiley Coyote:

My brother suffered ita. Crazy idea.

In reply to marsbar:


Indeed, any kind of holistic approach to teaching and children as people almost seems to be missing from education.

In reply to Heike:

>the teachers were letting us believe that everyone in Scotland is doing this now

Whereabouts in Scotland? Thankfully haven't seen this in Falkirk schools.

In reply to Wiley Coyote:

My concern (apart from it being obvious) is that they will extrapolate this to a ridiculous degree.

In reply to Timmd:

We do that when no one is interfering. I pay lip service to the nonsense and get on with my job.

In reply to aln:



This is Dunblane, but the school propaganda when asked was "they are all doing it now in Scotland", which I found hard to believe, hence my posting here...

In reply to Heike:

Oh my dislike is back.

How can climbers think children should be doing homework all the time and not playing and climbing trees and getting muddy and riding bikes?

I wish people would say why and not just click the button.

In reply to marsbar:
Absolutely! Climb trees first and then do the homework! (I have a feeling I will never be in the schools' good books...)

In reply to marsbar:

No child of mine will be allowed to go climbing. It's far too dangerous!

They are far more likely to want to do it if it is forbidden

In reply to Wiley Coyote:

I dare say it could just be used as a way of encouraging pupils, but the risk of children thinking they're not trying hard enough is a real one.

In reply to Heike:

I have read a bit more now and I think I have worked out what I really don't like about it. It's the notion that it's the absolutely right and best approach, no questions or doubts permitted. Discussion and questions should always be allowed in education (and anywhere else) unless you strive for indoctrination of course?...

In reply to Heike:
That's the same alarm bell which pinged in my head as soon as you posted.

You can't have one path to growth in a school full of individuals, or one 'right way of thinking'.

Bleargh to that.

In reply to marsbar:

If people didn't click the dislike button and said why instead they'd risk being found out to be wrong.

In reply to Timmd:


Have a 'like' for that!

In reply to Heike:

All the Stirling and Clacks schools are pushing it this term. Positive thinking/ optimism/growth mindset: call it what you will. It costs nothing and is better than doing nothing. I see it as a harmless ( and possibly futile) attempt at encouraging a bit of social mobility.

In reply to alan moore:
Positive thinking and optimism is great. And I'm all for social mobility. I just hope that some balance can be kept and that money isn't wasted on training people on the obvious.

It may not be futile at least for a while, due to placebo if nothing else.

In reply to Heike:

Contrary to what you might hope Heike there are hordes of teachers just waiting to sign up for the latest slickly packaged pseudo scientific educational theory.

In reply to Wiley Coyote:



I had that in England in the very early 80's. My chief memory of it isn't the system itself but my mum saying how stupid she thought it was!

In reply to Heike:

It's been about for a while now, although it is also common sense. In education circles I think it's essentially taken to mean combating:

I can't do maths
I'm rubbish at history

etc. and preventing them from becoming self-fulfilling prophecies, which seems like an objectively good thing. Particularly with kids with low motivation and/or self-esteem.

However there's probably always something better to do than to bang on about it.

In reply to Timmd:


DISLIKE.

In reply to Heike:

Did they present a case to justify it? Or was that case just taken for granted? I don't think parents are under any obligation to support a new school philosphy that hasn't been justified (educational equivalent of putting a "business case").

In reply to Heike:

Why not propose to the school that they do a double blind randomized trial? Half use the technique. The other half use a fictional technique. You then look at the results. You then have a really good lesson to teach after the event they could even go as far as to see if the very fact that the students were part of an experiment had a positive impact on their results, something that has also been observed in the past.

I agree with your hypothesis that it is worthy of a Gillian McKeith Guff award.

In reply to Heike:

Touch of the Brain Gym thing here, perhaps. Was this a generic thing or does it look like the school have bought some sort of package?

In reply to Heike:
Disclaimer: I'm speaking as someone who is vocationally an academic researcher in the fields of motor control & skill acquisition.

The idea that implicit beliefs about ability (or your ability to improve) is far from new. It has been shown to be a fairly robust phenomenon in academic research across a range of educational, sport, and organisational psychology fields.

In the last 5 years it has been picked up by various popular psychology sources - and so (like many concepts) can sometimes be blown out of proportion.

I won't get drawn into a long Friday night internet discussion about the research surrounding 'growth' and 'fixed' mindsets, but if anyone wants to chat about it in more detail feel free to email me (or better still, give me a shout if you're ever at a loose end in Llanberis).

What I will say, is that the potential positives of believing that effort directly results in success far outweigh the potential negatives. And if I'm wrong, and when all's done my effort could not overcome some sort of genetic 'talent', then I know I'd rather find that out first hand, then be left wondering 'what if I'd tried a bit harder'.

In reply to Heike:

Google Carol Dweck. Unless your kid's teachers can keep him back for hours of CBT, reinforced at home, then it's a load of shite. I doubt the majority of teachers at his school will be able to implement the core rational of this on a level that is thorough or consistent enough to be remotely effective. I'll bet that someone in your son's school's SLT has ticked a performance management box with that meeting though! High five to the unimaginative, box-ticking waste of space that latched onto the idea that's been around for years...

In reply to marsbar:
I'm not a maths expert, but is it mathematically possible to have every kid 'above average' ?
( if 100% of kids get 100% in every exam, are they not all just average performers?)

In reply to Jim C:

You're right, it's not possibly to have everybody above average.

In reply to Wiley Coyote:


I was taught to spell using ITA and my spellings grate

In reply to Jim C:

Exactly my point. I forget which government idiot said it but it has been said.

In reply to marsbar:

Gove? It is frightening the people in charge of education these days. There does seem a tendency for largely Merkan companies to copyright and package the bleeding obvious in order to sell books etc.

In reply to Heike:

I think it's just the same as all of this 'mindfulness' trend, which will solve all the world's problems. It will pass, but not before lots of money is wasted.

In reply to Heike:

Carol Dweck's work, which has seen a lot of subsequent corroborating research, suggests that people learn better and are more open to tackling challenges when they believe that their basic intelligence is something that can change. She calls this a growth mindset. The alternative belief - that basic intelligence is a fixed trait that we are born with (or develop very early in life) and can't change - she calls a fixed mindset. Furthermore the research suggests that people adopt a growth mindset when they are praised for their effort rather than for their achievement or intelligence.

So Dweck's message is much less obvious than "work harder and you'll do better". It is "put in the right kind of effort and you can become more intelligent".

Brain Gym is bollocks. Dweck's research isn't. As to whether teachers and parents can make a positive difference to students' learning by attempting to nurture a growth mindset - time will tell!

In reply to jonesieboy:

One has to take the most useful aspects from all these initiatives. There was a lot of bllcks around Brain gym but it is a very useful way of focusing pupils at the start of lessons.
Teaching is barely a sustainable activity at the moment without trying to implement yet more initiatives laudable though they may be.

In reply to Jim C:

Sir Keith Joseph apparently.

In reply to Heike:
I know it's not terribly UKC, but if anyone wants to do a bit of prior research then this is worth listening to (not that lack of knowledge stops me posting ...)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b062jsn7

I listened to it when first broadcast and thought it was quite persuasive, although had then forgotten it until reading this thread

anyway this is the summary:

"Carol Dweck and Growth Mindset

Claudia Hammond presents the history of psychology series which examines the work of the people who have changed our understanding of the human mind. This week she interviews Carol Dweck, who identified that individuals tend towards a fixed or a growth mindset regarding what they can learn and achieve. She also showed that a fixed mindset can be changed, and that once people adopt a growth mindset, they can achieve more.

Claudia visits a UK primary school where growth mindset is part of the curriculum, and sees how children who don't like maths soon change their attitude at a summer camp in California, once they're shown that getting the wrong answer actually makes their brains grow more than getting the right answer.

She hears more about Dweck and her work from colleagues Greg Walton and Jo Boaler at Stanford University, and executive head Dame Alison Peacock at the Wroxham Primary School"

In reply to jonesieboy:


The general scientific view is that intellect is 50% inherited and 50% environmental. So there is a limited to how 'clever' or rather how much any person can learn. This is based on recent research of twins, who've been adopted by families from different social backgrounds, streamed into differing education paths etc.. That 50% environmental can still help though, but not through gimmicks, but sound education practice, instilling confidence and so forth.


Nope, you can't become 'more' intelligent, the only thing that changes how is how well a person uses their intellect to gain knowledge, to learn skills etc.. Some will fulfil their natural ability, challenging themselves to learn new things their entire lives, others will become life long under achievers.

Whilst it's not very PC to say it, all children aren't equal, just like all adults. All the education system can hope to do, is to push each child nearer their maximum, some kids will always be better than others. They can thank their parents genes for that. The problem is research and public knowledge of this field is stifled, as the minute any person starts discussing, the PC brigade start talking about the Nazi's and their various experiments etc..

In reply to PeterBlackler:
> Claudia visits a UK primary school where growth mindset is part of the curriculum, and sees how children who don't like maths soon change their attitude at a summer camp in California, once they're shown that getting the wrong answer actually makes their brains grow more than getting the right answer.

Brains growing?

In reply to Heike:
I think Dweck's work is pretty sound, and that there is much more to it than you were told. I've seen first hand how some stuff like this CAN work, in some schools. It'll never be a golden bullet, fix all solution, but then nothing ever will. For me, it's often more worrying how little attention education systems pay to what the research says should work in improving education. Good to be sceptical, but this is actually more worthwhile and beneficial to kids than a lot of the other crap that goes on in schools. Check out the CBI report called "first steps" which touches on this subject, amongst others.

When all kids are still learning - to take a random example - to name the sexual reproductive organs of a flower (and other facts that could be easily googled, in addition to being totally useless or irrelevant to about 99.99% of kids) I'd say there are things of much greater concern than initiatives based on Carol Dweck's work. That does come with a caveat that it depends on the school's approach to it!

Putting more activities in place that teach kids about positivity and other characteristics of a growth mindset is - for me - a mostly positive step, as it'll probably be more of use to many kids than some of the other guff they're currently learning.

In reply to jonesieboy:
But is it true?
Can someone become more intelligent, or are they just making better use of their innate intelligence?

In reply to 1234None:

If you have ever seen low ability children distraught that they didn't get an A* because someone told them they can do anything if they work hard, you would understand my concerns with this idea.

It might work to an extent, but its based on lies that then become harmful later on.

In reply to 1234None:

Biology isn't mandatory beyond 14, so giving kids a broad education up to that point let's then find their niche, or aptitude. If more people understood nature more, the planet might not be so f#$%ed up. Plus, some of those little biologists could go on to discover great things in the future, how many medicines are plant derived?

Great but this is basic teaching - encouraging high expectations and learning by mistakes. Is it really necessary to go to California to do this?

In reply to summo:

I wasn't suggesting removing biology from the curriculum for younger kids at all. Do you know how much we teach kids about environmental issues and climate change? Given the size of the issue...not much, because they're too busy learning facts that will likely never be used and could be easily googled if ever needed. I agree with your sentiment that biology is important, and also that a rounded curriculum is important, but if you're disagreeing with the fact that there is lots of irrelevant crap taught, and in outdated ways, then disagree with the likes of Ken Robinson, Bill Lucas.

Re the point raised by someone else above about telling "low ability" kids to just work harder, I didn't advocate this approach and never would. After a few years working in schools, I've never seen this happen, as it is suggested above, and I do think there is much more to the growth mindset idea than the way this person portrays it. There is a lot to put right in education, but for me, for once, this initiative has many positive aspects.

In reply to 1234None:

Learning the basic terminology in any field is no bad thing.

In reply to 1234None:

I have seen it and its not good. It's people taking things too far.

In reply to summo:

I don't disagree with that sentiment at all. I wasn't saying that basic terminology isn't needed.

In reply to marsbar:
I'm sure it happens sometimes, but it isn't the norm, and rejecting an initiative based on this just doesn't sit well with me. None of the teachers i know would take the approach you mentioned.

As I said, scepticism is good with any new initiative, but this particular idea has been over-simplified in this thread as just saying "work harder and you'll do well." There is more to it than that, if it's done well (which it may not be everywhere).

In reply to summo:


To sarcastically say it will solve all the world's problems is typically cynical of UKCers.

For people who have un-quiet minds especially, mindfulness is very beneficial.

In reply to summo.


That's exactly what Dweck describes as a fixed mindset. She disagrees with you, and so do neuroscientists if one believes what she says.



Of course we are born with different natural strengths, but Dweck's claim is that everything in the brain is plastic. It is false, according to her, to assert that there is some fixed capacity called intelligence upon which we build skills and knowledge. Intelligence is also part of what changes over time.

In reply to marsbar:

As I understand it, contemporary neuroscience agrees with Dweck. Google neuroplasticity

In reply to jonesieboy:


I think it depends on how you define the term intelligence. Intelligence is different to the knowledge, reasoning, adaptability, mental capability, cognitive function etc.. some of these we improve at through experiences or learning. But they have an upper ceiling, which is 50% genetic and much of the 50% environmental aspect is what can be improved upon. All she is saying is that you can develop the 50% which isn't genetic, but that's hardly new, disputed, or ground breaking. It is simply enabling people to reach their full potential. Sounds like she is relabeling known science with misleading titles to sell books.


Exactly, you say natural strengths, a scientist would say inherit genetics. Which were set at the point of conception.

Things aren't plastic though, the reality is most people are lazy and very very few of reach our full potential, partially because we taught as large group, education has specific levels at certain ages, we then work and further learning is often hindered etc..

The nonsense about brains growing, increasing intelligence is really just people reach a bit nearer their true potential.

In reply to jonesieboy:

synap­to­ge­n­e­sis, isn't your brain getting bigger, or being more intelligent, it appears to most scientists as the better allocation of resources, or if you are using certain skills, motor, memory, languages... then over time 'it is theorised' that the brain gives over a greater area to that function. It doesn't grow.

Examples have been in taxi drivers, musician, bilinguals etc.. who often have larger areas specifically related to their fields. BUT that doesn't mean those areas changed in size, it's thought they just have more neural connections or were the connection there but unused (science doesn't know), perhaps these areas were always a little bigger and hence why they went into that field as they had a natural (genetic) aptitude?

It's also known that these traits are not universal across the respective fields and people, so perhaps it's only in some people with genetically inherited traits, which would imply again you can't polish a turd, not matter how much this woman believes it.

In reply to summo:

So how do you define intelligence? Not sure how I would define it! But it doesn't really matter so much to me, as I'm with Dweck and don't see intelligence as some distinct attribute like "handedness".

I don't think it is nonsense to talk about brains growing. That's exactly what they do as we learn, forming new connections and strengthening existing ones.

In reply to jonesieboy:


I see it more as your fixed upper limit of capabilities in all fields. Clearly we all have aptitudes (it's those genetics again), where we will excel at some things and labour at others, no matter how much we persist in trying to master them. You could say person X was very intelligent but didn't utilise it fully and only reached phd level. Person Y was less intelligent but pushed and got a masters.

It's about getting kids to fully use their capabilities and find their niche. There is no point in telling a kid hard work will help them master languages, when really they have a better grasp of maths and should head in that direction. People aren't equal, never will be.

But, she implies brains grow in a very different sense. The reality is more like a CPU and hard drive, where regular data is placed more accessible etc.. The hard drive doesn't grow, it's only the amount of space allocated to different tasks is varied on demand, the CPU doesn't become more powerful, only that some people are running at 99%, others 50%.

In reply to summo:

I don't think we are going to change each other's minds are we? Of course Dweck's research doesn't really say that a growth mindset is "right". It says that it is "effective" in the sense that people who hold a growth mindset learn better. I think there is substantial research to support that assertion.

In reply to Heike:
There's a phenomenon in education (and presumably in other fields but I can't speak for them) whereby people find an approach that resonates with them or works with their style of teaching and assume that it should therefore work for everyone. If that person is in a position of power in a school, local authority or (god forbid) government, that approach will get rolled out across that level.

The basic assumption is that what's good for the goose is good for the gander. The result is that teachers are pressurised into adopting methodologies or initiatives which they don't agree with or which clash with their own equally valid approach.

Does anyone know if this phenomenon has a name?

In reply to Morty:



Nailed it. What more is there to say?

In reply to DaveHK:

Mission Statement Swirl.

I work in healthcare, one of my colleagues once told a senior medic "we can't get too excited because what you fail to appreciate is that in 18 months there will be another senior medic along to tell us that we need to do it all differently." The guy could not understand why he never got promoted.

D

In reply to Dauphin:


You've just made that up haven't you?

In reply to DaveHK:

Yep!

D

In reply to Chris H:


I know of a head teacher whose nickname was Biggles 'because he'd pilot anything'

In reply to summo:

Studying science, including Biology, is mandatory up to KS4 (GCSEs basically, so age 16).

In reply to Heike:

The school I teach at fairly regularly gives assemblies to the kids about having a growth mindset. It strikes me as a much more useful philosophy than a lot of the stuff that gets trotted out in schools.

I'm reasonably certain that my school haven't spent any money on this idea and it seems entirely likely that your son's school haven't either.

From a scientific and a logical position, it seems like a reasonably sound theory so I can't see much harm in spending a small chunk of time explaining it to parents. Most parents will probably forget about it, and some like you might get very cynical about it, but a percentage might apply it from time to time and a few kids might spend a few extra hours studying with a more optimistic attitude as a result.

In reply to Heike:


That really resonates with me. When my kids were young, we lived in Switzerland and my then wife wanted to look at Waldorf schools for them. We went to the one in Zurich and I was horrified. It all looked very nice, and the kids there didn't resemble the Midwich Cuckoos, but the teachers did, to my mind. Rudolf Steiner's photo was in every classroom, and when you probed ever so slightly, you got no sense of people doing things out of a thought-out process that they were willing to change if it didn't work. What Rudolf (had) said (70 years ago) ruled.

In reply to Luke90:


I was referring to proper single subject science, not blanded, blended science, or combined as some may call it.

In reply to Luke90:


It will probably benefit their kids far more if the parents were to just remove their electronic devices from them and turn off the house's wifi for a few hours every evening.

In reply to summo:

Why does science need pigeon holing? I did combined science, didn't even know science was split into different subjects until the 6th form open day. I'm now a professional scientist.

Who decides what goes into what science? Is quantum biology physics or biology? Is atomic structures physics or chemistry? What about biochemistry?

In reply to XXXX:

you defied the odds?


Of course sciences inter-link, but if you make a subject so broad, you never really get into it either.

I just think talking one main science must be compulsory, there are a fair few wishing washy subjects about these days, so it's easier than ever for pupils to leave a bag full of GCSEs, all high grades, but actually not know so much overall. The ones Gove labelled as soft gcses.

In reply to summo:



Based on what evidence?


Gove was very misguided. The idea of things like the BTEC science course (and other wish washy sounding GCSE equivalent qualifications) is sound. Schools, unfortunately, use them to game the system because they are judged purely on numbers. Gove didn't discourage the gaming...if anything he probably made it worse. Having worked in schools for a few years most kids still do worthwhile qualifications, rather than wish washy stuff, despite the interference of meddling politicians. kids might know fewer facts than they used to, but their transferable skills are way better than they used to be when I was at school. They can present to a room full of people at age 10 or 11 and have an amazing command of technology. I think those things are overlooked when we just look at it from a perspective of "kids could do so much more when we had O levels etc".

In reply to Heike:

Don't know anything about its roots but can tell you how it is being applied in Scotland, and the reasons for it.

Historically education was about filtering and grading children. The good ones progressed the others would be given the basics they needed and off they went to the factory etc.

It's moved on and in recent decades we've needed a far more educated work force. Growth Mindsets is part of the new iteration of this progress. We need children to grow up to believe that they don't stop growing and learning. They need to be adaptable, felxible and able to respond as the labour market changes. It's not just about 'hard work', that's too simplistic an explanation. It's more about what kind of hard work, what do i need to work hard at and how will i do it?

Hope this helps.

In reply to 1234None:



that could easily stem from how much time they spend on various electronics out of school more than anything else.

The skills shortage list in the UK would seem to indicate that the UK isn't producing enough people with transferable science, engineering, IT and other tech skills.

Mining and Energy, Physics scientist, civil/mech/Electrical/electronic engineers, design engineers, various IT and programming skills, various medical professions,
...https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/4...

In reply to summo:

No disagreement from me on that one but most parents still aren't going to do it. At least the growth mindset concept is a fairly positive idea for the school to share.

In reply to summo:

However you want to chop it up, studying Biology is still compulsory up to 16. Some students don't have it separated out and labelled as such but they're still learning about it and mostly learning exactly the same stuff as those who choose separate sciences.

In reply to Father Noel Furlong:
Hmm, thanks, interesting, it doesn't match up though with reality, as I was just realising that they there are also putting children into streams as young as P2 and 3, so how does that sit with this growth mindset train of thought? IMHO if you put children into streams they will start believing they are A,B,C,D or yellow, blue and red. And they are not stupid, they know exactly what yellow, red and blue stands for (or in another class 'circles, squares and oblongs').

In reply to Luke90:



Basically I agree with this. The discussion which happened over the weekend on this thread may slightly have missed the point that it's not even really about how much of any person's ability is or isn't plastic and 'improveable' so much as whether or not we believe it is (hence the 'mindset' idea, rather than 'the brain').

There is some logic in at least encouraging resilience in kids and trying to shift them towards the idea that they're not 'just rubbish at maths', in order to encourage them to try a bit harder (even if they are basically rubbish at maths) is where schools are at these days because they can't be seen to allow anyone to cruise.

I'm the most cynical teacher there is when it comes to edukayshunal research which, as alluded to above, is almost always entirely flawed and invalid, but I'm slightly less negative about this than most of the things we have to wade through to get the actual teaching these days.

In reply to Heike:
Yeah. Streaming is really interesting and there's lots of questions as to whether schools should or shouldn't use it. I don't really have an answer other than hopefully children leave school with the belief that they can still grow and develop.

In reply to Father Noel Furlong:
Let's hope so! I certainly am hoping that children/learners of all ages can develop and improve if they put their mind to it. I work as a lecturer at university and I cannot imagine putting students into groups according to ability. What a ridiculous thought. Often people in groups complement each other, there might be the more intellectual one, the one that can do the research, the people person, etc. And they can help and complement each other, learn from each other. And if often shows that students can have a sudden rush of improvement because something clicked, they found an interest in an area, etc. I often find that in fourth year suddenly there is a huge improvement.

In reply to Heike:

At university you have already put them in a group. Generally by the time they get to university they are numerate, literate and generally not below average intelligence.

If you had to teach Maths with a mixed group from "can't count more than 10" to "Pythagoras is too easy" which you would realistically find in an average secondary school, you might have a different opinion.

In reply to Heike:

How would you feel if your child's teacher was trying to teach this in his class at age 15? http://urbrainy.com/get/848/counting-in-twos-5318

Still think it's ridiculous to ability group?

In reply to marsbar:

Hmm, I would disagree. I have a wide spread including direct entrants from year 3 who come from colleges (those who weren't let in because their grades were not good enough) and I have had fantastic outcomes from all ranges (or the opposite).

In reply to marsbar:

Well, if 15 year olds can't count, than there is something else wrong, streaming a age 6 won't address this. All kids should be able to read or write at that age surely...there is something more fundamentally wrong I would have thought.

In reply to Heike:

Are you teaching them stuff that is entirely new, or are you building on existing knowledge? If the latter, what happens if they don't have the existing knowledge (e.g. mathematical techniques)?

In reply to Heike:
Yes, its called learning difficulties. We still have to teach those who have them.

In reply to marsbar:
>
What is your evidence for each of those claims about the government ?

The government wants every pupil to be enabled to fulfil their potential. Presumably you'd agree that this is a good ambition?

Anybody who's ever been to school or had children knows that some children don't do as well as they could because they don't work hard enough but that very child is different:some need praise, some need a kick up the bum, some need their ambitions raised, some need their ambitions tempered. Aren't these the things that good teachers do anyway?

Presumably this stuff is just part of a swing of the pendulum away from the "all must have prizes so that none can fail" bollocks?

In reply to Postmanpat:

I see it as a different version of the all must pass none shall fail bollox.

Everyone can be clever. Just have a growth mindset.

And yes, I am already doing those things. I consider myself generally to be a good teacher. But I'm bored of all this pseudo scientific latest good idea from the half baked extra extropolated nonsense pile. I'm also bored of endless data and treating kids as numbers and targets instead of humans.

In reply to marsbar:

But your objection is that "children are missing out on life because they have too much homework, and every child thinks they can be a doctor or a vet and thinks they have failed if they don't get the grades"
This Sounds like you don't like the "growth mindset" idea because it means that, because it encourages high standards, it means that some will not meet these standards and so will "fail". That is the opposite to the "all must have prizes, none must fail" idea. Aren't you just saying that aspiration is a bad thing?

Presumably the solution ensure that each child's aspirations is realistic.

I can understand that being told the bleedin' obvious as if it were a new idea is a little irritating.

In reply to marsbar:
I disagree with streaming. Of course there are learning difficulties, but the whole point is that those with learning difficulties should get integrated in the class room with extra support, surely this is something that has become commonly accepted and the norm as far as I can tell.
I work at a university where we try to make opportunities for everyone, indeed the motto is "for the common good" and whilst I do not agree with everything/every policy at this uni, I think the very inclusive, open approach is fantastic. There is lots of support for people who have learning difficulties/special needs and we have had some fantastic students who have succeeded and gained very good degrees and firsts despite a "non-direct entry". Indeed, many of those who come "non-directly" had to work harder and realise to a greater extent what it means to them to get a good degree. If kids can't count to ten by age 15 (apart from special needs where there is a reason why they can't) there is something wrong with the system, no matter what. That doesn't justify streaming, though. All children should be encouraged to do well-ish and should interact with each other. Obviously, there might be some for whom counting to ten is a challenge by age 15 for specific reasons, but the majority of kids should have mastered that by age 7 IMHO.

In reply to Heike:

There is nothing wrong with the system, there is something wrong with the brains. Epilepsy, brain damage, downs syndrome, those kind of things. It isn't realistic or sensible, or sensitive to teach the full range of students Maths in one classroom. You simply don't have the full range.

In reply to Postmanpat:


That's exactly what I would like to see. However each child has a computer generated target based on largely flawed data, and incorrect assumptions. In general the targets don't seem to be stretching enough for the most able, and are too difficult for the less able. I would like to see targets set by humans with some knowledge of the child in conjunction with the data. The computer generated targets are given too much credence in my opinion.


More than a little.

In reply to marsbar:

our oldest (8), is in a class of 16. There are two kids who you might call a bit special, nothing extreme though. They have an assistant each. There in lies the solution, but it needs to be funded, which means folk need to go without other things or pay more tax. Without the extra help it would be tough for the teacher to focus on the other 14 and they admit this, rather than trying to gloss over it, with some fluffy equality nonsense.

In reply to marsbar:


I trust that is intended to be ironic??

In reply to Cambridge-Climber:
No, it was a reference to an actual politician who said it!!!! As well as the man in charge of "one f in" Ofsted.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/reality-check-with-polly-curtis/2012/ma...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mandrake/10409658/Michael-Gove-i...

http://www.localschoolsnetwork.org.uk/2011/06/ofsted-wants-all-schools-to-b...

http://www.inkpellet.co.uk/2011/04/keith-gaines-time-for-a-clegg-up/

In reply to marsbar:

That says it all, about politicians and education.

In reply to Cambridge-Climber:

I wish they would leave us alone to get on with it. The more they interfere, the more we spend time doing stuff other than actual teaching