[Miss Anonymous]

(Original post by Erebos)
I, by no means, claim IQ tests to be infallible. I do, however, think that they are the best measure of raw intelligence we currently have available.

But I'm sure the validity of IQ tests is a thread in its own right.

(Original post by PendulumBoB)
1. Measurements of working memory ave been shown to better predict academic success than IQ tests

This.

[kerily]

(Original post by DeadGirlsDance)
In all of the schools there are different sets for people with different abilities, so they are not slowed down and so that people who struggle get the help they need, e.g in GCSE maths at my school there are 14 different sets and there are also higher tier and foundation tier.

Not in all schools. We were set for GCSE maths and science, but not for anything else. GCSE English in mixed-ability sets was a joy The idea being that the more able pupils would help the less able, so everyone could even out in the middle...

I approve of separate education for different ability groups in principle, but I think it's incredibly difficult to do fairly in practice. The problem is that people slip through the net. My dad, for example, is very clever (he has a first on his degree from a good uni, and a doctorate) but ended up at a secondary modern, not a grammar school, because crippling exam stress runs in our family and he had a migraine on the day of his 11+. Even in this day and age, richer parents get tutors etc for children sitting the 11+. It's very difficult to actually differentiate between who would honestly benefit from x type of education and who would benefit from y type of education.

[Erebos]

(Original post by sophieelis)
Have you ever considered that he might have behavioural problems just because he does and not because of his learning environment? Surely if he were so keen to learn he would do it in his spare time on top of school?

He does. His behavioral problems are exclusively reserved for while he's at school. In addition, he had no such problems before we moved to the UK.

[DLJ]

There is, in Scotland:

[Mendax_Sane]

Well I went to a state school and they offered a lot of accelerated courses in most subjects - I did Maths and Science accelerated followed by Add Maths and General Studies.

[Cicerao]

Because very few listed as being gifted and talented are gifted and talented.

[Giggy88]

Surely it would be an issue to think about. But I think private schools/grammar schools are quite challenging and I've seen students in year 10 doing some AS modules. So it really isn't like there is no help for them at all. But totally specialzed schools for the top 5% of the country sounds a bit exxagerated and usually has a lot to do with richer kids getting into those schools as they are sometimes more expensive then university fees !

[alexs2602]

(Original post by Erebos)
I moved to the UK from the U.S about a year ago. When I was younger and still living in America I benefited from attending a specialist school know as a TAG school. These are schools with very challenging entrance exams designed to select the top 5% of the national population. At such schools strategies such as accelerated learning programs, a wider tailored curriculum, increased individual attention etc, are employed to maximize the potential of each student. It has come to my attention that the UK does not have a comparable system and I was wondering why this is.

My brother, who is seven years younger than me (12) and is in his first year of high school (he is enrolled at our local grammar school) has begun to develop behavioral problems. I believe this may be because he is under-stimulated and bored at school. Like me, he has a high IQ (in fact he is smarter than I am), but also becomes easily frustrated and demoralized when stifled. Unlike me however, he has not been given the same opportunities to be creative, develop his particular talents and pursue, in detail, his specific interests.

Grammar schools are selective of course, but only to the extent of identifying the top quarter of the populace. I believe this roughly translates as anybody with an IQ over 110 being able to pass the 11+ examination and obtain a place at a grammar school. I do not, in anyway, mean to come across as arrogant or elitist but at the risk of doing so I must highlight the fact that it is impossible to teach a spectrum of students with a IQ disparity of 30+ points without either stifling the most able or leaving behind the least able. This is a self evident product of different learning speeds.

Selective private schools have much the same problem. While they are very selective economically, having studied the entrance exams for a number of these schools, I have come to the conclusion that they are no more academically selective than state grammar schools.

The philosophy in the British education system seems to be one of "one size fits all". The pace of learning is the same whatever the pupils ability. Those who are smart are expected to slow down so the rest of the class catch up and those who are less able struggle and get left behind; it all seems terribly wasteful and unfair. Surely it would be beneficial for not only for all students, but also the UK economy and knowledge industry, if talent were allowed to flourish unimpeded?

Just a thought.

That's pretty accurate but not quite stating the whole truth. In my opinion it's just getting the whole populace up to a certain standard. Equal opportunities but as you pointed out it doesn't really work. Me and my brother were like you and your brother and there's not a lot you can do. I'd advise talking to the teachers at the very least.

I think it's ridiculous but if you want to do well then you shouldn't let anything hold you back. Do some research and homeschool/selfteach.

[tory88]

Probably the closest you're going to get is grammar schools, and there are precious few of those around nowadays anyway. A shame really, as they were always the poor man's way to move up the social ladder.

[ily_em]

(Original post by SuperPatchKid)
my 6th form had an 'Oxbridge group' which offered extra support to those who achieved 7*s+ at A level - and who also wore separate ties

wtf

[Procrastinate]

(Original post by DeadGirlsDance)
In all of the schools there are different sets for people with different abilities, so they are not slowed down and so that people who struggle get the help they need, e.g in GCSE maths at my school there are 14 different sets and there are also higher tier and foundation tier. There are private schools here aswell, you have to pay but you recieve better teachers and help. http://www.rougemontschool.co.uk/hom...nt?layout=item

But even in the higher sets, there will be a big difference between the top of the set and the bottom of the sets.

[magnum.opus]

Wah wah, it's tough being a genius and all that jazz

[Erebos]

(Original post by Cicerao)
Because very few listed as being gifted and talented are gifted and talented.

Says who, and on what basis?

[Ocassus]

(Original post by SuperPatchKid)
I went to a normal state school, where everyone was placed in different sets (ability) for maths, english, science and technology from maybe age 13? Also, those who were in higher sets for languages could do 'fast-track' GCSE in a year, and then take the AS in year 11 - which I personally hated, and would much rather have done it like everyone else. I've heard of people taking maths GCSE's and the like early too.

I think I'm pretty smart as it goes (I was told I was in the top 5% in lower school, if that counts) - and I like my education exactly how I had it - with everyone else. Anything else for me would have let to me burning out and not enjoying myself as much - and I reckon lots of bright kids would be the same.

In any case, I usually am against the whole segregating of students where it doesn't usually benefit. For example - my 6th form had an 'Oxbridge group' which offered extra support to those who achieved 7*s+ at A level - and who also wore separate ties - what sort of message does that send out to all the other students?

7A*s at A level [Which is the final part of school anyway] seems slightly outlandish tbh, are you sure your figures are correct?

[speedbird]

(Original post by Erebos)
I moved to the UK from the U.S about a year ago. When I was younger and still living in America I benefited from attending a specialist school known as a TAG school. These are schools with very challenging entrance exams designed to select the top 5% of the national population. At such schools strategies such as accelerated learning programs, a wider tailored curriculum, increased individual attention etc, are employed to maximize the potential of each student. It has come to my attention that the UK does not have a comparable system and I was wondering why this is.

My brother, who is seven years younger than me (12) and is in his first year of high school (he is enrolled at our local grammar school) has begun to develop behavioral problems. I believe this may be because he is under-stimulated and bored at school. Like me, he has a high IQ (in fact he is smarter than I am), but also becomes easily frustrated and demoralized when stifled. Unlike me however, he has not been given the same opportunities to be creative, develop his particular talents and pursue, in detail, his specific interests.

Grammar schools are selective of course, but only to the extent of identifying the top quarter of the populace. I believe this roughly translates as anybody with an IQ over 110 being able to pass the 11+ examination and obtain a place at a grammar school. I do not, in anyway, mean to come across as arrogant or elitist but at the risk of doing so I must highlight the fact that it is impossible to teach a spectrum of students with a IQ disparity of 30+ points without either stifling the most able or leaving behind the least able. This is a self evident product of different learning speeds.

Selective private schools have much the same problem. While they are very selective economically, having studied the entrance exams for a number of these schools, I have come to the conclusion that they are no more academically selective than state grammar schools.

The philosophy in the British education system seems to be one of "one size fits all". The pace of learning is the same whatever the pupils ability. Those who are smart are expected to slow down so the rest of the class catch up and those who are less able struggle and get left behind; it all seems terribly wasteful and unfair. Surely it would be beneficial for not only for all students, but also the UK economy and knowledge industry, if talent were allowed to flourish unimpeded?

Just a thought.

Ask Labour.

[Expecto_Patronum]

(Original post by Ocassus)
7A*s at A level [Which is the final part of school anyway] seems slightly outlandish tbh, are you sure your figures are correct?

I assume they meant 7 A*s at GCSE, rather than A Level.

[MissLightyear]

(Original post by Ocassus)
7A*s at A level [Which is the final part of school anyway] seems slightly outlandish tbh, are you sure your figures are correct?

I read that as those who got 7A*s at gcse get extra help at A level, could be wrong though

[ohm]

(Original post by alex_hk90)
I have wondered this myself and my conclusion is that the idea is if you're "gifted/talented" enough then you don't need special schools or treatment as you'll do the extra learning yourself.

[cvqw1278]

Grammar schools!!!!!

[ohm]

(Original post by Miss Anonymous)
This.

This.