state comprehensive secondary schools stretching able pupils - opinions?

Thanks for all these links. I'm a teacher and had no idea about some of these things. I've already emailed colleagues about lots of them!

The maths challenge things seem a great idea and mine have enjoyed them (mostly - although one answered D to all the first questions once and got a silver). The ones who do olympiad and kangaroo really enjoy the challenge.

Can I just say that my DD won't be doing GCSEs in all the things she does now (she's year 8), but she has been given the chance to try lots of different things so she can find what she loves. So I appreciate her school giving her the chance. To me that's what education should be about - learning stuff cos it's interesting. And doing advanced calculus is all well and good, but being able to make a skirt or do a bit of DIY is just as useful (& stretching for some). My eldest is doing maths at Cambridge but is always grateful he did Food so he can cook a bit and DT so he can change a plug.

(That last sentence of mine was a bit weird - I meant use UKMT material at home/for homework, rather than NRICH.)

Actually, to clarify, T set for Maths from Year 7 - after the first half term. They take Statistics in year 10, then Maths in Year 11, but I'm not sure if they are going to continue with this. Dd (who got a L6 SATS maths, fwiw) finds the Maths class enjoyable and it goes at a good pace. In ds's Maths set they went at a cracking pace as there were some extremely able boys and girls in his year.

I would rather the other subjects were set, too (they set for Science and MFL from year 8), as it does depend on the general spread of ability in a year and a duff class can affect the more able children if the teacher aims lessons at the middle or even lowest common denominator.

DD1 did achieve NC L6 at KS2 SATs

*According to the school's own data

Does your school do the UKMT Maths challenge? It gets progressively harder and harder and ends up as the Olympiad.
Have you also heard of the Smallpeice Trust?

I did not name the school TP, nor was I specific enough about the data to make it uniquely identifiable. You repeatedly encourage people to move to your area because of its great comprehensive schools. Ofsted benchmark data says something different (although, as above, I allow that such data could well not tell the whole story). My point was that it is very hard for parents to work out how good a school is, when the results mostly reflect the intake and Ofsted data/reports are often believed to not tell the whole story.

Indeed one of the reasons why schools don't do olympiads and challenges is that these don't appear in league tables. Since the school above happily runs trips costing close to a thousand pounds (and asks for parents to fund extra materials for DT etc), I think they wouldn't have a problem getting most parents to contribute a little bit for such things if the budgets don't cover it. They really don't cost a great deal.

At that level, the additional languages are not 'stretching'. ( I am languages teacher). It looks good for the school to offer them so that parents can brag, however.
Real, worthwhile stretching is deepening understanding, not just widening out to get a bigger haul of GCSEs.

My kid is currently studying French, Spanish, Latin and Mandarin. She's a level 8 for maths and studying gCSE poetry. She's 13. Not sure if want her stretched much more. She also plays lots of sport & watches too much Netflix. Comprehensive school.

My two pennorth is that schools do 'stretch', IME at least, and in subjects like maths there seems to be a particular strength in many schools in igcses for top sets, or GCSE early.

What I do think though is that gcses and indeed A2s are pretty crap. Certainly in the subjects I know of and about, the exams and the syllabus leading to them is just weak. I don't think that schools don't want to, or don't, stretch: I think exams don't.

DD1 was stretched by her 'seemingly' (results) poor Modern school despite being as Hakulyt puts it an 'outlier'. The very fact that she did not want to leave the school at either 13 or 16 because she was thriving , speaks volumes. The school was able to stretch DD1 and help her achieve ABB at A level (A Chemistry) The best results for 4 years at the school shows that even 'ordinary' schools can stretch pupils.

DD2 (yr11 Grammar) does not receive the same encouragement, for good work, it is just expected. I think that is not necessary a good thing, every pupil needs praise whether they are at a grammar, comprehensive or modern school.

cauchy
(The Ofsted data dashboard for TP's DS school says that it performs mostly in the 3rd/4th quintile compared to similar schools yet TP is happy with the school.)
NASTY STALKING COMMENT
I do not name my son's school : get a life and name your kids school before stalking mine

PS olympiads are unregulated, unrecognised and cost money

PPS schools are dropping Latin and Greek because the teachers are retiring - simple

Maths olympiads are neither here nor there.

Why? These are one of the best routes to extend those of high mathematical ability. I find it surprising that more comprehensive schools in affluent areas with significant numbers of high achievers don't engage with maths olympiads, linguistic olympiads, salter challenges etc.

This whole thread is about whether comprehensives are stretching the most able pupils or not. The school you are referring to definitely has a significant fraction of able and very able pupils. They do get As and As at GCSEs, (perhaps less As than one might expect) but it is very hard to work out whether high ability pupils are being stretched and challenged. One indication that they aren't doing everything they might is the lack of engagement with things like olympiads. Another indication is that they don't seem to offer subjects such as latin, greek, computer science, but maybe this is not feasible within their budget. Perhaps they do a terrific job with maths extension in house and they don't feel the need to do anything else (although this is rather at odds with putting kids in for the easier stats gcse as an extension instead of further maths gcse).

BTW the school in question does not, according to Ofsted data dashboard, perform in the highest quintiles when compared with similar schools although it performs in the top quintiles when compared with all schools. But again I'm not sure how much one should read into this, because it presumably depends on how Ofsted decides on what are "similar" schools. (The Ofsted data dashboard for TP's DS school says that it performs mostly in the 3rd/4th quintile compared to similar schools yet TP is happy with the school.)

No, she is bl....y well not me! For a start I haven't worked out how to put any of my text in bold type yet - you may have noticed that!

cauchy
By that post I have to assume you are Clavinova as you do not have the courtesy to leave schools un-named

Level 6 SATs are an option : DCs school did not offer it
and the school up the road is, in admissions, a comp : 50% high achievers is statistically unusual
Maths olympiads are neither here nor there

However
I have to agree with you that early entry is not a good move and the sooner it gets abolished again the better

The daftly high performing one up the road from me does not set.

Thornden sets for maths from year 8, doesn't it? It is also around 50% high achievers so I wouldn't call it effectively a grammar school. Around 40% of pupils got A or A in maths GCSE last year, although 90% got A-C in maths. They don't do Maths Olympiads, they don't do further maths GCSE so it's hard to evaluate how they are stretching the 5-10% of kids who came in with level 6 maths.

Each year the top set maths group take gcse early and they all get A and As. They then continue with their maths whether they then take a further qualification or not.*

Taking maths GCSE early isn't the optimal route for stretching able kids. Check out what Cambridge and other universities have to say about this.

not, the OP has said her DD is keen on science, is very able, and aspires to be an engineer. There is nothing wrong with that, and I am willing to believe the OP. The OP is trying to support what her DD wants.

Of course very able people choose to follow vocational career paths because that is where their passion lies, but this isn't the case for the
OP's DD.

The point if this thread is to help the OP's DD achieve her dreams.

not my DC are 15, year 11.

I can assure that they grew aplenty in KS3. That they did and still do all manner of non academic things from choir, to drama ( DD took 6 months off school effectively to take part in a west end show), to sports, to eating crisps and yapping with their mates.

And they were challenged rigorously in their academic lives.

For high ability children, it's perfectly possible to do both. For some, it's necessary.

My dd is at a non-selective state school. Each year the top set maths group take gcse early and they all get A* and As. They then continue with their maths whether they then take a further qualification or not.

80-85% get A* - C in maths.

Based on the evidence of one state school (!) it is possible to stretch able kids and I am sure lots are doing so.

Accelerated learning in maths is an issue, especially when it is done as a rule and children are accelerated inappropriately through the curriculum never fully grasping concepts and building on shaky foundations.

However, the OP has a bright child who may not be challenged appropriately in her peer group. Bright maths students at my school would be entered for both maths and further maths GCSE in Y11 in order to adequately prepare for A-level. A bright student at a school where this (or similar) is not offered because of a lack of sufficiently large numbers to make provision feasible is being short-changed compared to the kids at my school. They will start A-level in a weaker position and be more likely to struggle to manage the jump. If they take further maths, they'll likely be alongside mathematicians who have had extra provision and this could dent their confidence. For an aspiring engineer, especially a female one, this could be a major issue.

A yes, Talkin, I would be concerned by a non-selective comp that didn't set. A grammar school isn't true mixed ability teaching! I'm thinking of my bottom set in Y7 where some kids don't achieve a level at KS2 versus top set where some breeze a level 6. Having those kids together in a class of 30 means that neither will thrive.

Scottishprof and Word are giving useful advice about securing a place at an academic uni, and the foundation needed to thrive once there. Ideological comments are interesting, and I am fascinated by this thread, but they won't be much practical help to your DD PSBD.

I wonder, does the child actually get any say in this plan? Is there any room for children to grow during ks3? Maybe find a new passion? Perhaps, shock horror, follow a non-academic path. To actually enjoy their learning and not just buy into the current doctrine that, without a place at a RG Uni, their education has been in vain.

Of course not! Silly me being all ideological there Spring!

noble
I would be very concerned about a school that didn't set for maths for the entirety of KS3
Again, that depends on the school.
THe daftly high performing one up the road from me does not set
BUT
its effectively a grammar so all the kids are upper sets
and all of the less bright ones have home tutoring

roehampton
Its not unusual.
DCs school and those of their friends do it too.

senua
Go wider, not faster.
Absolutely. Richard Feynmann had very strong views about accelerated educatoin. Unprintable actually.