To be fed up with my DD having to prop up the less able children

[endlesschatonthecarpet]

OK, I know I probably am being unreasonable and await a flaming! My daughter (in year 1) is very quick, very clever but not blessed with much patience! Because she is one of the top in the class she always seems to be paired with a talk partner who is finding the work more of a struggle. I completely understand that this can be useful sometimes, but it seems to happen every day and some days my DD comes hope very fed up and grumpy because she's had to "waste time". She gets what the task is once the teacher has done the initial set up and is keen to get going. This endless sitting on the carpet with whiteboards talking to another child who is not working at the same level is doing her head in! Now, I fully accept that the teacher has to consider the needs of all the children - not just my precious DD, but couldn't she at least sometimes just send the more able children off to get started while she does a bit more work with the others or pair up the bright children so they can really develop their ideas?

Obviously I've said to my DD that she needs to get on with whatever the teacher asks her to do and haven't given her any indication that I share her feelings about this practice but I do feel really frustrated on my daughter's behalf.
Anyone else feel the same or am I alone in my unreasonableness?

At school, I was frequently expected to be a teaching assistant to other kids. It was resented by the kids and it was used against me in various ways, both by children and teachers.

Far from helping me, it made me stick out and made me very concisious of ever showing my ability, as it was regarded as a bad thing not a good thing by others. In terms of aiding my social skills it had a negative effect, not a positive one as I lost so much confidence through it. Sometimes I could help, but other times I wasn't able to explain it so the others could understand - because strangely enough, I wasn't trained as a teacher. It was frustrating and it made the other kids feel stupid for not being able to understand something that came so easily to me.

It affected my work as I had so much less time to do it, as I was expected to help others rather than concerntrate on what I was doing. I was constantly bored and frustrated in class, and even after complaining about how certain students were actively taking the piss out of the situation and expecting me to carry them and pretty much do their work for them, I was labelled as selfish or unhelpful rather the problem actually being addressed.

I've seen teachers and ex-teachers post on this thread about what a great thing it is to do. I could not disagree more having been through it. Its just convientant for the teachers and lets them abdicate responisibility with the greatest excuse that its in the interest of the bright kids due to social reasons. Its bollocks. Complete and utter BS. There is a massive difference between doing group work that is constructive and helps social interaction and this kind of thing.

"My experience of this activity being implemented poorly means that it can't ever be used properly by skilled teachers ever. So there."

Oh well, Bonsoir, I don't know what to say to that, no it doesn't, but what's the alternative?

I think the OP has very high expectation of what the teacher of a Reception's class of 30 children can offer. Children will be paired up with less able children, that's just the way it is. Sometimes hopefully they will be paired up with someome of the same ability. If we really want our children to only be paired up with children of the same level, that would be a bit, well, pathetic wouldn't it? And if a child is not stretched for 10 minutes of the day, well, they do have the rest of the day and other activities? Do you really, really think that children with higher ability should be stretched all the time? that would leave very little time for the children who are let's say, in the middle, or at the bottom? I don't know what you expect from a standard state school... they have one teacher for 30 children and you expect that the teacher will spend what, 80% of his/her time stretching children who are doing well? and what, leave the others behind?

sunscorch - it would be helped if there were:

• Class sizes were smaller

-Teachers received better support on the whole on how to challenge and stretch children of all abilities.

• Had the time/resources to implement this.

To back up what LeQueen says. It is very possible to have very severe dyslexia and have a very high IQ which means you are able to develop coping strategies which means the problem isn't picked up.

I know someone who was diagnosed with very severe dyslexia which affects his reading ability very badly, but it was never picked up until he was at university. When he was tested, he also came out with an IQ of 165, which explains why no one ever saw the problem.

He still struggles to read books.

FolkGirl,

Well, obviously. But that's not down to the teachers in the classrooms dealing with 30+ children every day. So we'll carry on doing the best job we can, including using talk partners.

Sunscorch: *It's funny, isn't it, how teachers are failing both the high ability children and the low ability children by giving the low ability children extra support and the high ability children a task that requires higher order thinking.

If only all our pupils were middle ability. Except we're usually failing them too, because we're focusing too much on the high ability children. Or the low ability children.*

IMO children can't be batched up like that and with practice and maturity 'ability' changes. The danger is that our children are branded a certain ability very young and this like their eye or hair colour stays with them for life.

As LeQ shows practice makes a huge different and can develop ability. The system seems to force teachers to see children as LA, MA or HA rather than as individuals with their own strengths and weaknesses. We seem to think current attainment equals ability & ability as being fixed, not always so.

Blueberry, your plea that dc learn patience, tolerance and understanding is something that nobody would disagree with. And working with dc of all levels of ability is a great way to teach that.

If it is for a few minutes each day, a chunk of time on Fridays, then that sounds fine to me.

Schools seem to vary a lot in how they use talk partners though - and if your child was learning less and being less stretched than s/he could be because they were always paired with a less academic child, then any parent would be concerned.

lequeen I have to say that my DD attends a mixed ability school that does cater for all its pupils.

However, in order to be successful it needs mahoosive resources and so is much more expensive.
It also has handpicked pupils who the HT can be sure will through themselves into the school community and whose parents will actively support.

And the setting is very rigorous and flexible.

Not a model that can be rolled out effectively country wide.

IMO children can't be batched up like that and with practice and maturity 'ability' changes. The danger is that our children are branded a certain ability very young and this like their eye or hair colour stays with them for life.

In shitty schools, perhaps. Ability groups a reshuffled half-termly in my classroom, and more frequently if necessary.

*are

sunscorch I agree. It's just frustrating for all concerned. I wasn't 'stating the bleeding obvious' although obviously I was

Sunscorch - I have never seen truly flexible ability groups in all my life - and I've travelled a bit. The system means that high, middle and ability children are identified by end of KS1 if not before. The system encourages labeling. I have seen a child at the margins very occasionally moved up or down, I've never seen regular, radical changes. I don't think I am alone.

Sorry, I meant the system means high, middle and LOW ability children are identified.

Could the OP move to Lake Wobegon? I've heard that 'all children are above average' there.

Then, Hamish, what is your alternative suggestion?

Let's not just flail mindlessly against the corrupt and flawed establishment - present your solution.

Sunscorch, sigh it's a 'one size fits all' approach that fails a significant minority IMO. I think the solution is that parents do as much at home with their child as possible and are not fearful about being their child's advocate if needs be.

I find this thread so frustrating!

Talk time, less than five minutes a day sharing with someone, is what it the OP was about.

For that amount of time, and that task only, then having a lower-ability partner on sonme occasions should be absolutely fine.

An example of talk time:

Teacher: "Do you remember what a sentence is?"

Children in pairs for one minute: Urm, "capital, full stop, verb..." between the two of them, and then all turn back to the teacher.

This means that OP's DD gets to say what she knows about sentences out loud, or hear it said by her partner. The alternative would be her knowing it, waving her hand in the air, and 29 times out of 30 another child being chosen to say it and she just has to listen.

If we are talking about streaming, doing the same work, helping with work, etc, etc, then that is a whole different thing.

FWIW, my son went from the very bottom reading group (reception) to know the very top (Year 4). He did the same in Mathematics, and that is a subject they formally stream in. He was a very late bloomer, and I am pleased he was with a school and peers that allowed him to blossom!

The problem is a lot of 'bright children' are given a get out of jail free card to be unpleasant/impatient to 'less able' children because they are bright and feel they shouldn't have to tolerate it.

She is probably learning some valuable social skills she is not going to grow up in an elite super race of intelligent people, she needs to learn that kind of tolerance.

I'm sure you mean well put the OP sends the message that you support her impatience and maybe she picks up on that. That is aslong as the other child is not disruptive, that's different.

Yes, some don't seem to realise that the intensive practice can often make a difference. I really don't like to have to approach teachers though about this sort of thing. They can be defensive, as if you are somehow doubting their professional judgement. It's not as simple as that though and I really think the system is to blame, if they are taught to categorise the class into high, middle and low ability then there will be victims at the margins. Especially if the different ability groups are defined by NC levels, each group working to the next NC target in hierarchical order.