Aibu to get cross that the more advanced children never get 121 help in state schools?

[arethereanyleftatall]

I volunteer at my dcs school, listening to children read.
I always listen to the less able pupils.
Outside the classrooms there is always 121 help going on, either with the assistant teacher or another parent volunteer, always always with the less able pupils.
I have been in to the schools hundreds of times, and I have never once seen any of the children who are doing really well, getting extra help.
I get that I should be grateful that my dc don't need the extra help, I get that the class will move forward as a group faster if the less able can keep up, I get that done dc don't get help at all at home, etc etc
But I just wish that sometimes, just once, the kids who are doing well get pushed on.
Aibu?

That's a good comparison with nhs really tired - I hadn't thought of it like that.

Great point re independence. I feel a bit embarrassed I hadn't thought of it like that.

I think it varies so much between schools. When we were looking round schools for DS1, when you would expect at least lip service to be paid, one school (which is rightly brilliant at helping kids with SEN) just sort of shrugged when asked how they stretch their most able kids, and said 'oh, they're just fine on their own.'

Simpson - I've been reading with y3 this year. The 4 children I listen to, are at about the same level as the majority of the reception kids. No sn, just never ever are read to, or listened to at home. I know the parents, no reason for it (that I know of).

There is only enough funding to support the less able and they should come first out of the very limited funds.

Gov should put in place a system and funds to support more able children as a priority, and develop specialist schools for all types of subjects.

It sort of happened with my ds1 he's in year 2 but does some maths work with yr3 and has some extra literacy work with the TA and a couple of other kids.

Many school clusters run workshops/ tournaments /challenges for children who are gifted or talented in a particular subject - schools simply don't have the budgets to cover this on their own. Funding for TAs is exceptionally stretched - even children with statements or EHCPs are not granted all of the funding they need (schools have to fund a significant part of the cost from their own SEN budgets).

YANBU or not completely. Yes, a reading task 1-2-1 wouldn't be the best use of a TA for a gifted student (in general) but I think the state sector is so swamped trying to deal with less able students that G&T kids are completely overlooked at times. They need to be stretched otherwise there's a danger they will just coast or worse, become disaffected.

I agree that being G&T is a special need in its own right and we are failing G&T kids by not recognising that. We're also failing society in a wider sense because there's so much untapped potential that falls through the cracks.

If the most able children were supported to achieve their best in all state schools, then perhaps more people from state schools would take the top jobs in the country, instead of them going mostly to the privately educated.

Actually I think a child in year 3 who is still reading at reception level does have a sen, i.e. they have more difficulty learning than most children. Even if the parents never read with them, after 3-4 years in school an average child would be much further ahead than that.

Would you rather have your child taught by a teacher or a parent helper?

In the interest of fairness and full disclosure I should point out that DD1 developed anorexia in her first year at uni and eventually was so ill she had to take a year out, graduating a year after the rest of her cohort.

A key part of her anorexia was perfectionism, expecting everything she did to exceed expectations. Maybe if she had been stretched and challenged in school and learned to deal with 'imperfection' she might never have succumbed to that horrible illness.

In our school they stream the classes from key stage 2 for maths ams English. This allows them to put the more able children together to be challenged and those that are struggling to get more help. They even mix the years up a bit. They can do this a bit more easily as they are a bigger primary with two classes per year and more staff.

According to our deputy is not a popular approach, but they seem to get good results. They are an outstanding school and have been for some time. Children with sen get more one to one support.

There are moments when I think AIBU posters who go 'Oh it turns out I am!' should get a gold star :)

I agree with a couple of pp's that able pupils are pushed in some schools.

Ds1 has separate maths lessons with the year above and also gets taken out of class for additional maths lessons with an external tutor and two other boys. However, the tutor (who's a retired maths lecturer) is also one of the Governors, with dc who used to go to the school - so I've often wondered if we're just lucky and he does it on a voluntary basis. I'm not really sure how it works.

In my dd's primary school there was one group who got no additional help or support whatsoever. It wasn't those with additional needs, or the G & T or even the ones with challenging behaviour.

No - it was the quiet ones in the middle. Pretty much ignored. As long as they just about managed to hit average key stages and targets they were left to get on with it.

I'm interested in what difference the extra help to G&T pupils makes. I'm not trying to be goady - I was very good at maths at school, used to win the maths prize etc but I didn't get any extra attention and I'm not sure how it would have benefited me. Classes were streamed. What have you felt the benefits were?

Just to clarify, I don't think I am G&T though. Very much not...

I don't think any children in my sons school get a fair amount of 1:1. My sons doesn't get what his statement of Sen sets out. Parents think the TA is available for everyone but on seeing her breakdown of tasks I doubt she has time outside of her set interventions.

When I did reading in class it was with any / all the kids.

I do think my school must do lots of g&t work as churning out grade six sats in yr six was the main thrust of the leavers service last year.

They need to get kids out at that level for Ofsted ratings I'm sure. It was alway a certain set of kids doing well since year four. I would bet that they had extra help to ensure they got to that level

A key part of her anorexia was perfectionism, expecting everything she did to exceed expectations. Maybe if she had been stretched and challenged in school and learned to deal with 'imperfection' she might never have succumbed to that horrible illness.
Sorry, I know this must be a very sensitive point for you but this makes no sense to me at all. "Pushing" of high-performing children often turns out to be a bad thing. The other children often catch up later. Early success does not build a strong basis for future sustained success. Look at Ruth Ellis.

Balaboosta, I really hope you mean Ruth Lawrence. What with Ruth Ellis being the last woman to be hanged for murder and all.

Bala - I disagree. I completely understand what the pp meant by that comment.

I was the top performer of my year throughout my fairly poor comp. I came top of 300 kids in GCSES with 5 A*'s and 6 A grades. I coasted it...didn't even revise. It was easy. I was probably any teachers dream pupil in an understaffed, underperforming school with lots of 'problem' kids. I was polite, a perfectionist, always handed work in on time - could be completely left alone to crack on, and would come top every time with minimal teacher input.

I was never pushed, never given difficult or stretching tasks. No extra work, no further learning. I never experienced what it was like to struggle, or to fail, or be 'imperfect' in anything academic. The work was easy, I was fucking awesome, the best of the bunch academically, and I knew it.

My comp didn't have a sixth form so I went to college for A Levels. What a massive, massive reality check that was. Suddenly I wasn't the best - I was one of 25 other kids doing a Double Maths A Level, who'd all had A*'s at GCSE. I was distinctly average in that cohort and I hated it. Some of the others were bona-fide geniuses and completely outshone me. At age 16, I had no idea how to handle that because i'd never experienced it, never had to even try hard before.

It completely demotivated me and pushed my ego and confidence through the floor. I became gradually more disengaged and resigned to the fact that I wasn't the best, so why try. I completed college with middling 4 x B grade A Levels. Took a gap year because I couldn't face more disappointment at Uni. Never went back.

I've done OK and it's worked out well for me in the end. But, anecdotally, a lot of the 'clever' kids at school with me are the ones that ended up just getting a job rather than going all the way with education. And lots of those who were average students seem to be the ones who went to Uni and further.

Bright and able kids need to be pushed/stretched/made to think IMO. Not to make them even better, but to prepare them and give them experience in what it's like to struggle with something. How do you learn to strive and try hard if you've never had to do it? And what impact does it have at the point in a childs life where they realise that everything won't always just fall in their lap?

I think it's worse for children who have a talent in the arts, most of the time music and art are taught in mixed ability, and particularly in the case of music it's hard to differentiate. DS3 is currently been sent to a practise room to do his own thing every week because he's so far ahead of his year 9 group, it would be impossible for his teacher to differentiate in class when he picks up the esson in 5 minutes flat. Most academic subjects are at least put in sets at secondary level.

"Pushing" of high-performing children often turns out to be a bad thing.

I agree completely, but think there needs to be a balance between extreme pushing and not enabling the most able to achieve their potential.

Suitably challenging work should be given to all children, at the level they are at, to help them move forwards at their own pace. This kind of differentiation doesn't always happen in reality though.

Strawberrydelight, you say you were in a fairly poor comp. Do you really think resources should have been taken from kids who were skating on the difference of fail/pass to make sure you had extra help?

Maybe the reason you didn't succeed in college was because the college you were in didn't give you the resources you needed - not your failing comp. Any college getting a super bright student like you should have made sure that you were supported and stretched through college.

And still you did well and it worked out well for you. If extra resources at comp level had been given to you rather than a truly mediocre student then maybe that student would have failed utterly. It is far easier to slide down when you are at the bottom than when you are already intellectually at the top.

In an ideal world the gifted would be given every opportunity and resource. And ditto those who struggle. But we don't live in an ideal world and nearly every highly intelligent person I know from an under-resourced background, did really well with no extra help. Not sure the same can be said for people who struggle and need help and don't get it.

In general if you are bright and talented and good at school you are not disadvantaged.