Who would have thought it?

I think the success of Finnish schools is as much based on their size than their inclusiveness. In a country with a relatively small population scattered over a large area, there schools tend to be small. I did some research some years ago and I think the average secondary school had well under 500 pupils and primaries were very small.

They also do not have huge conurbations with such large populations of economically and socially deprived people.

You cannot compare two such different countries as the UK and Finland and pin the success or failure of the education system on one factor

Some still will, obviously, but I'd be horrified to find it was anything but rare.

As I said, it's not malicious or deliberately having a 'down' on some children, it's a mistaken assumption or a faulty interpretation of research. You might think it rare but I have seen it often in the particular area I'm interested in.

I am very well aware that all but a very few teachers are completely dedicated to their jobs and have the welfare and achievement of their pupils as an absolute priority. That doesn't stop them making mistaken assumptions from time to time.

I taught in several schools, covering the full secondary/6th Form spectrum (10 to 19) in one of the first Counties to go fully Comprehensive. Brilliant - with proper setting and grouping, I do not believe there can be any better system.

Very sad my grandkids live in a segregated system with 11+.

My piint is and was simply that I believe teachers are trained not to label kids like that. Some still will, obviously, but I'd be horrified to find it was anything but rare.

Nowhere, maiz, and I didn't say you said it either. I asked whether it was not assuming prejudice to worry that children would be labelled in a certain way. I think you misunderstood my response to be more ascerbic than was intended.

Monica said after my first post on this thread: "And that is what people find so difficult to accept. It is so much easier to say that the reason you/your child didn't do well in life was because you had a poor education or an unsupportive home rather than accept you did not have the ability.

I find this odd, because nobody minds admitting that they are no good at sport or cannot draw or are useless mechanically, but no-one wants to admit that they lacked the academic ability., which is odd, because being good at sport or art or at mending cars is held in very high regard."

I find it odd too. We (our society) often seem to talk of intelligence as if it were a single thing. I think there are different kinds of intelligence just as there are different kinds of 'motor' ability. Perhaps schools focus too much on academic ability. That's not a criticism of schools who have to do what government requires of them.

Where did I say that some teachers are prejudiced, Baggs?

Even suggesting some teachers are that prejudiced seems OTT to me, maiz, when my own observations suggest that most teachers try very hard (as they are trained to do) to give kids equal opportunities. However, if that's your worry, so be it. There are no horses involved. I was just surprised by what you said. Perhaps my experience of teachers has been fortunate.

Look at Finland which has the best educational outcomes in the world - all their schools are inclusive and comprehensive.

The time is long overdue for political parties (especially the Tory Party) to start forming their education policy on the basis of evidence, not prejudice and snobbery.

... and the reverse. A child put under too much pressure to achieve because they are assumed to be as clever as their parents. I have experienced several cases of that among my friends.

Maizie so would I.

Monica I agree, everybody's interests and abilities are different - some are very good at languages, others at maths, sports, science, art, music, etc. etc. Some are very fortunate in being able to excel in many academic and other areas, whatever their background.

I don't think many people would argue that everybody is equal in terms of intellectual/practical/physical abilities. However, I think much research has indicated that, bar those with exceptional abilities in one or more areas, a lot of the difference in academic outcomes are a result of unequal access to a number of things which influence learning. These include: secure housing and enough room to study quietly, regular and nutritious food, access to outdoor play and nature, days out/holidays in this country or abroad, well equipped schools with motivated teachers, access to private tuition and extra-curricular activities such as learning a musical instrument, etc. etc. etc.

I think it is too easy (and convenient for some) to equate academic and career success with higher inherent intellectual ability and hard work. Whilst there will always be gifted individuals, I believe that, generally speaking, educational and career outcomes are more dependent on external factors than individual ability. Because these inequalities are not addressed, it seems to me that there is a great pool of unrealised talent and sometimes people in high office who are unequal to the job.

Get off your high horse, Baggs. I worked in a support role in a secondary school for over a decade. I also take a very close interest in a particular area of education. Some teachers, not all teachers, can be quite thoughtless about applying labels to children. It's not done maliciously, just thoughtlessly.

Also, some teachers are quite good at getting the wrong end of the stick when it comes to interpreting research. Or they get it reported to them at second (or more) hand and it becomes distorted in the telling.

Toby Young's work with schools is minimal. He lobbied for Free Schools, set one up and discovered that education was much harder than he'd thought. He's quite a good example of 'who you know' being more important than 'what you know'; he even used his father to get him into Uni (Oxford/ Cambridge, I forget which) when his exam results weren't good enough... and he's rather keen on eugenics...

Why would you worry that, maizie? Doesn't that assume that teachers are full of prejudice?

Young is described as a co-author. I don't know how much he contributed. His work with schools seems to be highly regarded and successful.

On the other hand, MOnica, I worry that a child from a family of apparently not very bright parents will be labelled as 'genetically incapable' of learning much.

I'm also rather distressed to see eugenicist Toby Young's name associated with the 'genes' story. Plomin might well have 'impeccable credentials' (in fact I already knew of him and his work) but Toby Young doesn't.

And that is what people find so difficult to accept. It is so much easier to say that the reason you/your child didn't do well in life was because you had a poor education or an unsupportive home rather than accept you did not have the ability.

I find this odd, because nobody minds admitting that they are no good at sport or cannot draw or are useless mechanically, but no-one wants to admit that they lacked the academic ability., which is odd, because being good at sport or art or at mending cars is held in very high regard.

Another recent study says that, other things being equal (i.e. equal educational opportunities) the differences in educational outcomes will, as kids grow older, increasingly be determined by genes.

Robert Plomin, King's College London prof and "the acknowledged leader in the genetics of intelligence" (Matt Ridley in the Times), Emily Smith-Woolley, and Toby Young: www.thetimes.co.uk/article/forget-private-school-its-all-in-thegenes-hzxfj8nwd?shareToken=61d90c393d69758196f0771c4f44274f

I have long felt that dividing children up into successful and less successful at the age of 11 is wrong. Children develop at different stages and are, apparently, mentally the age they are physically so a child who is already well on the way to puberty has an advantage over a child who is physically small.

Another reason I don't like the segregation is that some areas have grammar school and some don't. When I was 11 about 8% of girls got a grammar school place in my LEA but when I moved a few years later it was 25% in that LEA.

Years ago I read some research which proved that an average child educated in a group of above average children will perform better than an average child educated in a group of average children.

My ideal would be a school big enough to have several classes in each year, enough to allow streaming in different subjects, and for it to be normal to move a few children up and down each term or each year so that all children are working in an environment suitable for their ability in the main subjects. A friend of mine went to a large comprehensive with 8 form entry and worked her way up from the third to the top class. Shame that isn't available for all children.

It is question of having an evidence-base for any assertions, (governments are very keen on evidence-bases). As you quote, there is now firm evidence that a secure and stable home life leads to a better educational outcome and greater social mobility, regardless, I seem to remember, of which soci-economic group the child comes from. A good basis for government support for policies that encourage stable and secure families.

The result Maizie quoted, has gone against received thinking and sadly it is unlikely the government will take any notice of it, because it challenges its received wisdom.

The research you are talking about says much more than your OP implies.

It actually says that grammar schools do no better than comprehensives.

Grammar schools are no better or worse than non-selective state schools in terms of attainment, but can be damaging to social mobility, according to new research by Durham University.

www.dur.ac.uk/news/newsitem/?itemno=34136

So I think your indignation at the 'waste of money' is misplaced.

I actually think the 'waste of money' is unnecessarily funding Grammar schools...