Monkey Tennis Posted October 21, 2019 Share Posted October 21, 2019 1 hour ago, Malky3 said: Other schools in the town are Dalziel High School is 1.5 miles away. It's 29th in the league tables Our Lady High School 2.6 miles away is 78th Braidhurst High School is 334th. Braidhurst isn't a good school in any context. The point I was making though in regard to this thread is that if you are a parent in the local area with an 11 year old child with all their life choices ahead of them, would you REALLY choose to send them to the 6th lowest ranked school in Scotland based on exam results just so they can swim on a Monday morning and spend a bit more time "doing" football at school? "Performance schools" are not where the SFA should be centring their resources. They should be improving standards across the grassroots levels by reducing the cost of coaching, ensuring the coaching courses that are advertised are not cancelled at the very last minute because it's not profitable enough, and enabling more training and playing time for kids everywhere by ensuring there are sufficient number of good quality, floodlit, facilities all around the country. I accept the overall point that a parent may wish to consider factors outside of football in deciding whether or not to send a child to a Performance School. However, I'd place much less faith than you apparently do, in the bald facts regarding league tables. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malky3 Posted October 21, 2019 Share Posted October 21, 2019 33 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said: I accept the overall point that a parent may wish to consider factors outside of football in deciding whether or not to send a child to a Performance School. However, I'd place much less faith than you apparently do, in the bald facts regarding league tables. They may be crude but they are a readily available measure, easy to understand, and I'm far from the only person putting store in these tables. I know it's not your argument, but similarly there are those within the SFA who place more faith in the recruitment ability of the Performance Schools than I do. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted October 22, 2019 Share Posted October 22, 2019 7 hours ago, Malky3 said: They may be crude but they are a readily available measure, easy to understand, and I'm far from the only person putting store in these tables. I'd say that they're incredibly easy to misunderstand, and that your early posts on the matter provide a fine illustration of that. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burnie_man Posted October 22, 2019 Author Share Posted October 22, 2019 9 hours ago, Malky3 said: They may be crude but they are a readily available measure, easy to understand, and I'm far from the only person putting store in these tables. I know it's not your argument, but similarly there are those within the SFA who place more faith in the recruitment ability of the Performance Schools than I do. How do all the other performances schools compare in these league tables? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Moonster Posted October 22, 2019 Share Posted October 22, 2019 11 hours ago, Malky3 said: How is that trolling? What a ridiculous claim. It's fact. Scotland used to produce far better youth prospects than we do today and we did it without "performance schools" and "elite development clubs" funded by huge grants. Back when I played you played locally until you were 14 at which point a senior club may come in and sign you on S' Forms. Senior Clubs were restricted to the number of S Forms they could sign. And the SFA didn't squander £millions of sponsorship money on "elite" shirt fillers who are just there to make up the numbers. You need to put FACT in capital letters before I'll believe it, sorry. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
albagubrath Posted October 22, 2019 Share Posted October 22, 2019 13 hours ago, Malky3 said: How is that trolling? What a ridiculous claim. It's fact. Scotland used to produce far better youth prospects than we do today and we did it without "performance schools" and "elite development clubs" funded by huge grants. Back when I played you played locally until you were 14 at which point a senior club may come in and sign you on S' Forms. Senior Clubs were restricted to the number of S Forms they could sign. And the SFA didn't squander £millions of sponsorship money on "elite" shirt fillers who are just there to make up the numbers. Because you are comparing apples with oranges. The fact that Scotland produced some great footballers 50 years ago apparently more by luck than judgement is fairly irrelevent to the task of improving youth development today. Surely it is self-evident that football and society in general have changed beyond recognition in that time? You are essentially advocating the 'numbers' theory, which is to spread your resources as widely as possible and the sheer numbers will produce some players who are world class. The performance school methodology is of targetted development, you pick the best youth players and give them hyper-specialised development tools to help them progress. The former works better when you have a giant population, Nigeria perhaps being a decent example of a country where this has had some level of success (5 time U-20 World Cup winners, although they have struggled somewhat to turn that into a world beating full team, possibly reinforcing the need for more targetted development). The later works better with a smaller number of participants; it is essentially the club football academy process. Barcelona would probably be the best known example of this with La Masia producing at least a dozen international to world class footballers in the last 20 years, all from an intake of just 200 boys per year. Quote "Performance schools" are not where the SFA should be centring their resources. They should be improving standards across the grassroots levels by reducing the cost of coaching, ensuring the coaching courses that are advertised are not cancelled at the very last minute because it's not profitable enough, and enabling more training and playing time for kids everywhere by ensuring there are sufficient number of good quality, floodlit, facilities all around the country. Whilst all the things you list are noble requests, if we assume the SFA is primarily dedicated to producing a winning senior male and female football team (and that in itself is very arguable as a mission for that organisation, but that's a different argument), these do not appear to be priorities. Good quality floodlit facilities didn't exist when those players you previously mentioned were developed in the 60s and 70s, nor did widespread qualified coaches, so it is not clear to me why you think these are relevent to your argument? I'd be genuinely interested to know from what evidence you have formed this opinion? It very much flies in the face of most current sports development methodologies across all sports which very much focus on identification and development of the most promising youngsters from an early age. Indeed, look at the most successful sportspeople in Scotland over recent years: Chris Hoy was identified and developed individually, Laura Muir, Andy Murray etc. the same. If you are going to advocate for something completely different to the greatest and most successful coaches in world sport, you really need to back that argument up with a lot more evidence than you are. That's why it is being claimed you are a troll. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woof! Posted October 22, 2019 Share Posted October 22, 2019 6 hours ago, albagubrath said: Because you are comparing apples with oranges. The fact that Scotland produced some great footballers 50 years ago apparently more by luck than judgement is fairly irrelevent to the task of improving youth development today. Surely it is self-evident that football and society in general have changed beyond recognition in that time? You are essentially advocating the 'numbers' theory, which is to spread your resources as widely as possible and the sheer numbers will produce some players who are world class. The performance school methodology is of targetted development, you pick the best youth players and give them hyper-specialised development tools to help them progress. The former works better when you have a giant population, Nigeria perhaps being a decent example of a country where this has had some level of success (5 time U-20 World Cup winners, although they have struggled somewhat to turn that into a world beating full team, possibly reinforcing the need for more targetted development). The later works better with a smaller number of participants; it is essentially the club football academy process. Barcelona would probably be the best known example of this with La Masia producing at least a dozen international to world class footballers in the last 20 years, all from an intake of just 200 boys per year. Whilst all the things you list are noble requests, if we assume the SFA is primarily dedicated to producing a winning senior male and female football team (and that in itself is very arguable as a mission for that organisation, but that's a different argument), these do not appear to be priorities. Good quality floodlit facilities didn't exist when those players you previously mentioned were developed in the 60s and 70s, nor did widespread qualified coaches, so it is not clear to me why you think these are relevent to your argument? I'd be genuinely interested to know from what evidence you have formed this opinion? It very much flies in the face of most current sports development methodologies across all sports which very much focus on identification and development of the most promising youngsters from an early age. Indeed, look at the most successful sportspeople in Scotland over recent years: Chris Hoy was identified and developed individually, Laura Muir, Andy Murray etc. the same. If you are going to advocate for something completely different to the greatest and most successful coaches in world sport, you really need to back that argument up with a lot more evidence than you are. That's why it is being claimed you are a troll. This is rare for me, but 100% spot on. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malky3 Posted October 22, 2019 Share Posted October 22, 2019 9 hours ago, Burnie_man said: How do all the other performances schools compare in these league tables? Hazelhead Academy, Aberdeen - 214th (Cults Academy which is 16th is 4 miles away) St John RC, Dundee - 236th (Grove Academy which is 70th is 4 miles away) Broughton HS, Edinburgh - 188th (Boroughmuir HS which is 6th is 2.5 miles away) Graeme HS, Falkirk - 128th (St Mungo is 72nd and is 2.2 miles away) Holyrood Secondary, Glasgow - 82nd (Glasgow Gaelic School is 10th and 3.5 miles away) Grange Academy, Kilmarnock - 127th (Stewarton Academy which is 8 miles away is 64th) Holyrood Secondary appears to be the best performing of all the schools but as you can see in each case the schools are outperformed by other schools in their locality. SFA Performance Schools take kids from outside of their catchment area so the fact that better schools are close by is highly relevant. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malky3 Posted October 22, 2019 Share Posted October 22, 2019 7 hours ago, albagubrath said: Because you are comparing apples with oranges. The fact that Scotland produced some great footballers 50 years ago apparently more by luck than judgement is fairly irrelevent to the task of improving youth development today. Surely it is self-evident that football and society in general have changed beyond recognition in that time? You are essentially advocating the 'numbers' theory, which is to spread your resources as widely as possible and the sheer numbers will produce some players who are world class. The performance school methodology is of targetted development, you pick the best youth players and give them hyper-specialised development tools to help them progress. The former works better when you have a giant population, Nigeria perhaps being a decent example of a country where this has had some level of success (5 time U-20 World Cup winners, although they have struggled somewhat to turn that into a world beating full team, possibly reinforcing the need for more targetted development). The later works better with a smaller number of participants; it is essentially the club football academy process. Barcelona would probably be the best known example of this with La Masia producing at least a dozen international to world class footballers in the last 20 years, all from an intake of just 200 boys per year. Whilst all the things you list are noble requests, if we assume the SFA is primarily dedicated to producing a winning senior male and female football team (and that in itself is very arguable as a mission for that organisation, but that's a different argument), these do not appear to be priorities. Good quality floodlit facilities didn't exist when those players you previously mentioned were developed in the 60s and 70s, nor did widespread qualified coaches, so it is not clear to me why you think these are relevent to your argument? I'd be genuinely interested to know from what evidence you have formed this opinion? It very much flies in the face of most current sports development methodologies across all sports which very much focus on identification and development of the most promising youngsters from an early age. Indeed, look at the most successful sportspeople in Scotland over recent years: Chris Hoy was identified and developed individually, Laura Muir, Andy Murray etc. the same. If you are going to advocate for something completely different to the greatest and most successful coaches in world sport, you really need to back that argument up with a lot more evidence than you are. That's why it is being claimed you are a troll. I don't think the fact that we produced extremely talented players was luck rather than judgement at all. The facilities we had back in my day might not have been luxurious but they were plentiful, available and free to play on. I lived in Cardonald, Glasgow near the "Fifty Pitches" at Shieldhall. Loads of vacant football pitches, mostly gravel, all free to play on. Close to my house too was a primary school with a gravel pitch. We would jump over the fence and play there for free until the janitor got bored of the noise and chased us away. When my sons were growing up if they wanted a game of football they needed £36 to rent a third of a football pitch for an hour (no matter how many of few of them there was) and they'd only be able to book it if a football club didn't already have a block booking. Elite performance doesn't fix the problem of the lack of ball time for kids - it just channels all the finance and resources into the clubs and schools that are SFA approved with slim pickings left for the rest of us. You ask what evidence I have. I don't have any. Unlike others I haven't gone around studying foreign models that could be implemented here. I just have common sense and logic. However I am led to believe that in Iceland they invested a great deal of money in increasing the number of pitches and facilities they had around the country - rather than channelling into the elite game and in Belgium I'm told that Senior Clubs work together with juvenile clubs, sharing resources, to increase the number of players participating and increasing the scope for scouting for talent. What we are doing in Scotland is clearly wrong though. Performance Schools recruit kids at the age of 11 writing off any late comers to the sport, or any late developers. Having coached at juvenile level I am very aware of the different rates of growth in kids and how a kid who looks fast and powerful at the age of 11 won't necessarily progress that way against his peers as the years progress. Sadly our pro youth clubs are following a similar model. Those that actually have scouts will send them to monitor football at the youngest age groups looking to recruit players in before the age of 11. Beyond that age group senior clubs are generally uninterested. In a small country isn't it bonkers to write off so many players at such a young age? How will you ever know if a lad at the age of 11 is going to become a big commanding centre half? It defies logic, and anyone who goes along to watch under 15's, 16's and 18's football will see plenty of the talent that has been written off already as being too old to develop. It doesn't look any better when you look at it from the players perspective too though. How can we possibly, as a nation, think that it's appropriate to have young kids of school age doing upwards of 60 mile round trips three times a week after school to train at pro youth level, with a match at the weekend that could be up to 150 miles away from home? Do we really think all that travelling is a good use of those children's free time - time when they are supposed to study, or play as well as excersize? Talk to coaches at these "elite" clubs and they'll happily point out their best talents to you telling you which ones of their squad are likely to make it. Ask them about the rest - shirt fillers as I call them - and they'll shrug their shoulders. "You can't have a football team without 11 players" one told me. Spending the resources on increasing participation for me is the logical way to go. The best players will emerge as they have always done and at that point let the senior football clubs channel their own resources on the development of the players they sign. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malky3 Posted October 22, 2019 Share Posted October 22, 2019 9 hours ago, albagubrath said: Chris Hoy was identified and developed individually, Laura Muir, Andy Murray etc. the same. If you are going to advocate for something completely different to the greatest and most successful coaches in world sport, you really need to back that argument up with a lot more evidence than you are. That's why it is being claimed you are a troll. BTW, just to pick you up on this. I don't know much about these peoples individual stories, but I had a wee search around online. Chris Hoy says in his own biography that he wasn't anything special as a kid. At 7 he began racing BMX. At the age of 14 he joined a cycling club. He was 17 before he moved to a track cycling club, and 21 before he was tipped by anyone in the sport as being a future medal prospect. Laura Muir too doesn't seem to have anything different to athletes that preceded her like Yvonne Murray or Liz McColgan in that they started out with an athletics club - one of loads - and over a number of years they emerged as being consistently faster than the rest. Then they got specialist coaching and funding. In all of those cases they weren't "picked up" until they were well past the 11-12 year old bracket where Scottish Football appears to operate. Andy Murray of course is slightly different in that his coach in the early years was his Mum! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted October 23, 2019 Share Posted October 23, 2019 (edited) 16 hours ago, Malky3 said: Hazelhead Academy, Aberdeen - 214th (Cults Academy which is 16th is 4 miles away) St John RC, Dundee - 236th (Grove Academy which is 70th is 4 miles away) Broughton HS, Edinburgh - 188th (Boroughmuir HS which is 6th is 2.5 miles away) Graeme HS, Falkirk - 128th (St Mungo is 72nd and is 2.2 miles away) Holyrood Secondary, Glasgow - 82nd (Glasgow Gaelic School is 10th and 3.5 miles away) Grange Academy, Kilmarnock - 127th (Stewarton Academy which is 8 miles away is 64th) Holyrood Secondary appears to be the best performing of all the schools but as you can see in each case the schools are outperformed by other schools in their locality. SFA Performance Schools take kids from outside of their catchment area so the fact that better schools are close by is highly relevant. Of course schools geographically close to each other might have very different exam results from each other. Walk a few miles across any town or city and you'll see wildly different sets of circumstances from which children emerge. I reject absolutely your use of the term "better schools" in your final sentence. Not only do I think that there are other significant features to a school, but I don't accept that even In the narrow yet important terms of offering pupils enhanced chances of exam success, those higher up your League Tables are necessarily better placed to deliver, than those which might appear lower down. Edited October 23, 2019 by Monkey Tennis 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burnie_man Posted October 23, 2019 Author Share Posted October 23, 2019 14 hours ago, Malky3 said: Hazelhead Academy, Aberdeen - 214th (Cults Academy which is 16th is 4 miles away) St John RC, Dundee - 236th (Grove Academy which is 70th is 4 miles away) Broughton HS, Edinburgh - 188th (Boroughmuir HS which is 6th is 2.5 miles away) Graeme HS, Falkirk - 128th (St Mungo is 72nd and is 2.2 miles away) Holyrood Secondary, Glasgow - 82nd (Glasgow Gaelic School is 10th and 3.5 miles away) Grange Academy, Kilmarnock - 127th (Stewarton Academy which is 8 miles away is 64th) Holyrood Secondary appears to be the best performing of all the schools but as you can see in each case the schools are outperformed by other schools in their locality. SFA Performance Schools take kids from outside of their catchment area so the fact that better schools are close by is highly relevant. Thanks. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burnie_man Posted October 23, 2019 Author Share Posted October 23, 2019 13 hours ago, Malky3 said: BTW, just to pick you up on this. I don't know much about these peoples individual stories, but I had a wee search around online. Chris Hoy says in his own biography that he wasn't anything special as a kid. At 7 he began racing BMX. At the age of 14 he joined a cycling club. He was 17 before he moved to a track cycling club, and 21 before he was tipped by anyone in the sport as being a future medal prospect. Laura Muir too doesn't seem to have anything different to athletes that preceded her like Yvonne Murray or Liz McColgan in that they started out with an athletics club - one of loads - and over a number of years they emerged as being consistently faster than the rest. Then they got specialist coaching and funding. In all of those cases they weren't "picked up" until they were well past the 11-12 year old bracket where Scottish Football appears to operate. Andy Murray of course is slightly different in that his coach in the early years was his Mum! Aren't you losing sight of the fact that players can develop via performance schools AND via normal routes? They can also fail via both routes. Performance schools are just another way of developing talent, we haven't closed down other routes. Jayden Fairley who scored for the U17's last night, started out at my club, Blackburn United, before being picked-up by Hibs. I'm not sure at what age that happened. I've always been of a mind that professional club academies pluck kids away from their local community club too soon and as a result far too many fall out of the system and lose their love of football by the time theyr're 16/17, and that more investment should be made into improving coaches at these local clubs, and make it free for them. Maybe when these kids hit 14/15 then they can move to academies for better and more specialised coaching, but until then let them enjoy football without the pressure. Performance schools aren't perfect, Club Academies aren't perfect and neither are the local community clubs. We'll never have a perfect system. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gonzohiggy Posted October 23, 2019 Share Posted October 23, 2019 15 hours ago, Malky3 said: Hazelhead Academy, Aberdeen - 214th (Cults Academy which is 16th is 4 miles away) St John RC, Dundee - 236th (Grove Academy which is 70th is 4 miles away) Broughton HS, Edinburgh - 188th (Boroughmuir HS which is 6th is 2.5 miles away) Graeme HS, Falkirk - 128th (St Mungo is 72nd and is 2.2 miles away) Holyrood Secondary, Glasgow - 82nd (Glasgow Gaelic School is 10th and 3.5 miles away) Grange Academy, Kilmarnock - 127th (Stewarton Academy which is 8 miles away is 64th) Holyrood Secondary appears to be the best performing of all the schools but as you can see in each case the schools are outperformed by other schools in their locality. SFA Performance Schools take kids from outside of their catchment area so the fact that better schools are close by is highly relevant. They do take kids from outwith their catchment area, sometimes well outside the catchment area. With education, most parents send their kids to the school most local to them and often they live in a particular area because of the school in the area. Most people will not review a selection of schools in a pretty wide radius from their home (as you have above) and then select the best one based on where it is on the league table. My local school is Grange Academy and there is absolutely no way I am driving my kids to Stewarton twice a day / every day, even if it was first on the table! Back to football, you clearly come from a generation where youth development and the quality of player produced differ from what we have done in Scotland more recently and are sceptical of new methods. You quite rightly point out that there will be differing rates of development in kids over the years and that good players may be missed by the system. I accept that but there are still various pathways available to these boys to become footballers should they be good enough. There is absolutely nothing to stop a later developer (or indeed any player not in the performance schools) from becoming very good and eventually reaching international level. What the performance schools are doing is providing a reasonable amount of boys who are outstanding at the start of secondary school with significantly more ball time, coaching and football education through their secondary schooling which when added to the boys who come through non performance school routes and players who have not came through the Scottish system at all, should in theory give us a pool of players to have a greater chance of success in the future. Educating as many Scottish boys as possible, as early as possible on the dedication required to be a footballer can only be a good thing as in my view. It is this dedication as much as anything that our footballers have severely lacked in the last 2 decades. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malky3 Posted October 23, 2019 Share Posted October 23, 2019 8 hours ago, Burnie_man said: Aren't you losing sight of the fact that players can develop via performance schools AND via normal routes? They can also fail via both routes. Performance schools are just another way of developing talent, we haven't closed down other routes. Jayden Fairley who scored for the U17's last night, started out at my club, Blackburn United, before being picked-up by Hibs. I'm not sure at what age that happened. I've always been of a mind that professional club academies pluck kids away from their local community club too soon and as a result far too many fall out of the system and lose their love of football by the time theyr're 16/17, and that more investment should be made into improving coaches at these local clubs, and make it free for them. Maybe when these kids hit 14/15 then they can move to academies for better and more specialised coaching, but until then let them enjoy football without the pressure. Performance schools aren't perfect, Club Academies aren't perfect and neither are the local community clubs. We'll never have a perfect system. I don't think I'm losing sight of anything but apart from that I agree completely with your post particularly where you say that in your opinion these players are being recruited too early. This is absolutely the case and it perpetuates. I just think that the performance school idea is built on flawed logic and that it offers poor return in terms of value for money. Kids are being recruited in too young. If the premise was to teach the kids good habits at an early age - labelling them as "elite" and putting them into a mainstream school where expectations of academic achievement are low isn't really the way to go about it. And at the age of 11 it's always going to be impossible to know if the child has the mental strength, the ability or will develop the physicality they'll need to survive with that kind of pressure put on them. Will they develop a bad attitude, or a growing sense of entitlement - and what happens if the kid gets a long term injury or they simply don't make it. 14/15/16 would be a better age at which to target specialist coaching. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malky3 Posted October 23, 2019 Share Posted October 23, 2019 9 hours ago, gonzohiggy said: They do take kids from outwith their catchment area, sometimes well outside the catchment area. With education, most parents send their kids to the school most local to them and often they live in a particular area because of the school in the area. Most people will not review a selection of schools in a pretty wide radius from their home (as you have above) and then select the best one based on where it is on the league table. My local school is Grange Academy and there is absolutely no way I am driving my kids to Stewarton twice a day / every day, even if it was first on the table! Back to football, you clearly come from a generation where youth development and the quality of player produced differ from what we have done in Scotland more recently and are sceptical of new methods. You quite rightly point out that there will be differing rates of development in kids over the years and that good players may be missed by the system. I accept that but there are still various pathways available to these boys to become footballers should they be good enough. There is absolutely nothing to stop a later developer (or indeed any player not in the performance schools) from becoming very good and eventually reaching international level. What the performance schools are doing is providing a reasonable amount of boys who are outstanding at the start of secondary school with significantly more ball time, coaching and football education through their secondary schooling which when added to the boys who come through non performance school routes and players who have not came through the Scottish system at all, should in theory give us a pool of players to have a greater chance of success in the future. Educating as many Scottish boys as possible, as early as possible on the dedication required to be a footballer can only be a good thing as in my view. It is this dedication as much as anything that our footballers have severely lacked in the last 2 decades. Regarding the highlighted bit first - forget the league table. If your local school wasn't an SFA Performance Academy and you weren't in the Performance Schools catchment area would you send your child to that school for trials, or for their schooling? If the answer is yes - can I ask why? I disagree with your assertion on the work that these performance schools are doing and I disagree with you in terms of the value for money they offer. These Performance Schools cost around £3,000 per annum per place. Money that would be better used creating more facilities for players of all standards to get more ball time. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gonzohiggy Posted October 23, 2019 Share Posted October 23, 2019 1 hour ago, Malky3 said: Regarding the highlighted bit first - forget the league table. If your local school wasn't an SFA Performance Academy and you weren't in the Performance Schools catchment area would you send your child to that school for trials, or for their schooling? If the answer is yes - can I ask why? I disagree with your assertion on the work that these performance schools are doing and I disagree with you in terms of the value for money they offer. These Performance Schools cost around £3,000 per annum per place. Money that would be better used creating more facilities for players of all standards to get more ball time. Bit of a hard one to answer as i have never considered sending my kids to another school due to the Granges performance and I am in the catchment area. The Grange has a very wide demographic of kids, some from quite fortunate backgrounds with the correct support and others with more difficult lives. These factors really influence a schools performance, it's not necessarily down to the quality of the education. How can you disagree that the PS aren't working? The oldest boys are 18 so we don't know yet. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malky3 Posted October 23, 2019 Share Posted October 23, 2019 6 minutes ago, gonzohiggy said: Bit of a hard one to answer as i have never considered sending my kids to another school due to the Granges performance and I am in the catchment area. The Grange has a very wide demographic of kids, some from quite fortunate backgrounds with the correct support and others with more difficult lives. These factors really influence a schools performance, it's not necessarily down to the quality of the education. How can you disagree that the PS aren't working? The oldest boys are 18 so we don't know yet. I don't know the Grange at all, but this demographics excuse for poor performance drives me nuts. It's almost like schools, teachers and politicians accept that when someone comes from a poor background there's no hope of educating them. My kids were sent on a placement request outwith our local schools catchment area to a top 30 school that sits right in the heart of a "1st Most Deprived Decile" area according to the SIMD. I've no idea if they got a better education (they certainly had a couple of bad teachers), or if they would have had the same career path as what they are on today if they had gone to the local school, but I don't regret the choice my wife and I made. What I can absolutely tell you though is that I sent the kids to that school for academic reasons - I would not have been looking to send my kids away from their local school to play football at a school that was 6th bottom of the league tables - even if I thought my son was the new Messi. I've covered the answer to your question earlier in the thread. The oldest kids coming through the PS are actually at least 22/23 and possibly 24. The project actually started before Mark Wotte "introduced" it. it just wasn't called a Performance School back then - it was still an SFA Academy though. The only player I am aware of that made it through Braidhursts early intake was Jai Quitongo who eventually broke through at Morton after being released from loads of clubs, who then moved to Partick - and who earlier this year found himself playing football in Iran before being freed and as far as I know he's either given up football, or he's still looking for a club. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gonzohiggy Posted October 24, 2019 Share Posted October 24, 2019 It might drive you nuts but the fact of the matter is some of these kids are absolutely broken before they even start secondary. It is very difficult for the schools to transform the personality of the children and then harness good exam results. Will happen with some of them and not others but it's naive to think that demographics don't play a part. Nope, boys aren't old enough. Might sound to you like the School of Football setup was the same thing under a different banner but although the premise was the same, it was much different in reality. If Jai Quitongo was the only notable graduate in 6 years of the performance school I think you might find support waning!!! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malky3 Posted October 24, 2019 Share Posted October 24, 2019 5 hours ago, gonzohiggy said: It might drive you nuts but the fact of the matter is some of these kids are absolutely broken before they even start secondary. It is very difficult for the schools to transform the personality of the children and then harness good exam results. Will happen with some of them and not others but it's naive to think that demographics don't play a part. Nope, boys aren't old enough. Might sound to you like the School of Football setup was the same thing under a different banner but although the premise was the same, it was much different in reality. If Jai Quitongo was the only notable graduate in 6 years of the performance school I think you might find support waning!!! You don't need to be poor to be broken as a child! Anyway, go on then. Regale me about the ways in which the programme changed 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.