[LMB] Prep and Finishing School OT:

[Tracy MacShane]

On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 09:07:39 +0100, "James M. BRYANT, G4CLF" <jbryant at lunainternet.net> wrote:
> I complained that in the UK (and probably elsewhere)
> there is too frequently a political bias that support
> for the less gifted child is more important than
> providing support for the gifted ones.
> 
> And Andrew asked:-
> 
>  >Can such a belief only be the result of bias?
>  >Should not the majority also have an environment
>  >where they 'can make the most of their talents.'?
> 
> Yes - it is bias if the less able are favoured.
> In a universal system appropriate resources should
> be provided equally to all - not biassed to the more
> gifted, but equally not biassed to the less able.

Speaking as someone with a reasonable amount of intelligence, with a mother who was on a benefit for 10 years with four children to bring up, and who went to one of the worst schools in the country, I can speak to the fact that going to a less-than-average school *does* impinge on your educational progress. However, I had no problems matriculating for university - the hard part was being able to afford to *stay* there. And I didn't.

So, while I would have liked the *idea* of going to an elite school, where academic prowess was rewarded and not beaten out of you, really, it made stuff-all difference to my later career. What *does* matter is if you're of average intelligence and you go to a school at the bottom of the heap, you get *left behind*. I'd rather have fewer children leaving schools functionally illiterate than have a few more hitting the universities, in the greater scheme of things. 

I still get boiling mad at the thought of some of my classmates thinking getting a bank-teller job at the age of 16 was the pinnacle of achievement, when I encountered a bunch of people attending law school at university who weren't any brighter and who certainly didn't work any harder.

I haven't seen a convincing economic or political model for keeping exclusively elite schools, while still being able to maintain good levels of teaching and resourcing for the not-so-blessed schools. At least, not with education budgets the way they are. 

I did attend a grammar school in my final year - and yes, what a *difference* - but it served the local community primarily, and they were only allowed 10% of students out-of-zone. But that had the best of both worlds by pure good luck - a decent endowment when it was established 120 years ago, a very vigorous and prosperous Old Girls association, and then the influx of local students (especially Maori/Polynesian and working class) only happened in the last 30 years *after* all the capital had been built up. So, with that good historical reputation, and the fact that the rich old girls send their daughters there, the school has been able to balance the "comprehensive" and "grammar" functions (to put it in English terms) exceptionally well. 

But I think that is very much the exception. In the usual model, funneling resources to one type of schooling means it's been funneled *from* somewhere else. And frankly, I think the richer, better resourced and *more intelligent* pupils can make do without more readily. I personally would have done better with more resources pushed my way, but if they made university education cheap/free, that would have achieved a better result, IMO.

On a slight tangent, there was an extremely interesting article in the NY Times recently about studies which appear to show that a family's economic background makes an appreciable difference in measured IQ (http://makeashorterlink.com/?U2091118D). It doesn't surprise me in the slightest.